GLOBAL PARTNERS LP - Annual Report: 2016 (Form 10-K)
0.
UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549
FORM 10‑K
(Mark One) |
|
☒ |
ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 |
For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016 |
|
OR |
|
☐ |
TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 |
For the transition period from to |
Commission file number 001‑32593
Global Partners LP
(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)
Delaware |
|
74‑3140887 |
P.O. Box 9161
800 South Street
Waltham, Massachusetts 02454‑9161
(Address of principal executive offices, including zip code)
(781) 894‑8800
(Registrant’s telephone number, including area code)
Securities registered pursuant to section 12(b) of the Act:
Title of each class |
|
Name of each exchange on which registered |
Common Units representing limited partner interests |
|
New York Stock Exchange |
Securities registered pursuant to section 12(g) of the Act:
None
Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well‑known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act. Yes ☐ No ☒
Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Act. Yes ☐ No ☒
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. Yes ☒ No ☐
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S‑T during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files. Yes ☒ No ☐
Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S‑K is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of registrant’s knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10‑K or any amendment to this Form 10‑K. ☐
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non‑accelerated filer or a smaller reporting company. See definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer” and “smaller reporting company” in Rule 12b‑2 of the Exchange Act.:
|
|
|
|
Large accelerated filer ☐ |
Accelerated filer ☒ |
Non‑accelerated filer ☐ |
Smaller reporting company ☐ |
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b‑2 of the Act). Yes ☐ No ☒
The aggregate market value of common units held by non‑affiliates of the registrant (treating directors and executive officers of the registrant’s general partner and their affiliates, for this purpose, as if they were affiliates of the registrant) as of June 30, 2016 was approximately $364,148,403 based on a price per common unit of $13.71, the price at which the common units were last sold as reported on the New York Stock Exchange on such date.
As of March 7, 2017, 33,995,563 common units were outstanding.
2
Forward‑Looking Statements
Certain statements and information in this Annual Report on Form 10‑K may constitute “forward‑looking statements.” The words “believe,” “expect,” “anticipate,” “plan,” “intend,” “foresee,” “should,” “would,” “could” or other similar expressions are intended to identify forward‑looking statements, which are generally not historical in nature. These forward‑looking statements are based on our current expectations and beliefs concerning future developments and their potential effect on us. While management believes that these forward‑looking statements are reasonable as and when made, there can be no assurance that future developments affecting us will be those that we anticipate. All comments concerning our expectations for future revenues and operating results are based on our forecasts for our existing operations and do not include the potential impact of any future acquisitions. Our forward‑looking statements involve significant risks and uncertainties (some of which are beyond our control) and assumptions that could cause actual results to differ materially from our historical experience and our present expectations or projections. Known material factors that could cause our actual results to differ from those in the forward-looking statements are those described in Part I, Item 1A. “Risk Factors.” These risks and uncertainties include, among other things:
· |
We may not have sufficient cash from operations to enable us to maintain distributions at current levels following establishment of cash reserves and payment of fees and expenses, including payments to our general partner. |
· |
A significant decrease in price or demand for the products we sell or a significant decrease in demand for our logistics activities could have an adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations and cash available for distribution to our unitholders. |
· |
Our crude oil sales and logistics activities have been and could continue to be adversely affected by, among other things, changes in the crude oil market structure, grade differentials and volatility (or lack thereof), implementation of regulations that adversely impact the market for transporting crude oil or other products by rail, changes in refiner demand, severe weather conditions, significant changes in prices and interruptions in rail transportation services and other necessary services and equipment, such as railcars, trucks, loading equipment and qualified drivers. |
· |
We depend upon marine, pipeline, rail and truck transportation services for a substantial portion of our logistics business in transporting the products we sell. Implementation of regulations and directives that adversely impact the market for transporting these products by rail or otherwise could adversely affect that business. In addition, a disruption in these transportation services could have an adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations and cash available for distribution to our unitholders. |
· |
We have contractual obligations for certain transportation assets such as railcars, barges and pipelines. A decline in demand for (i) the products we sell, including crude oil and ethanol, or (ii) our logistics activities, has resulted and could continue to result in a decrease in the utilization of our transportation assets, which could negatively impact our financial condition, results of operations and cash available for distribution to our unitholders. For example, during 2015 and 2016, we experienced adverse market conditions in crude oil caused by an over-supplied crude oil market which resulted in tighter price differentials, and we experienced a reduction in our railcar movements but remained obligated to pay the applicable fixed charges for railcar leases. |
· |
Our sales of home heating oil and residual oil continue to be reduced by conversions to natural gas. |
· |
We may not be able to fully implement or capitalize upon planned growth projects. Even if we consummate acquisitions or expend capital in pursuit of growth projects that we believe will be accretive, they may in fact result in no increase or even a decrease in cash available for distribution to our unitholders. |
3
· |
Erosion of the value of major gasoline brands could adversely affect our gasoline sales and customer traffic. |
· |
Our gasoline sales could be significantly reduced by a reduction in demand due to higher prices and to new technologies and alternative fuel sources, such as electric, hybrid or battery powered motor vehicles. |
· |
Changes in government usage mandates and tax credits could adversely affect the availability and pricing of ethanol, which could negatively impact our sales. |
· |
Warmer weather conditions could adversely affect our home heating oil and residual oil sales. |
· |
Our risk management policies cannot eliminate all commodity risk, basis risk or the impact of unfavorable market conditions which can adversely affect our financial condition, results of operations and cash available for distribution to our unitholders. In addition, noncompliance with our risk management policies could result in significant financial losses. |
· |
Our results of operations are affected by the overall forward market for the products we sell, and pricing volatility may adversely impact our results. |
· |
Our business could be affected by a range of issues, such as changes in commodity prices, energy conservation, competition, the global economic climate, movement of products between foreign locales and within the United States, changes in refiner demand, weekly and monthly refinery output levels, changes in local, domestic and worldwide inventory levels, changes in safety regulations, failure to obtain renewal permits on favorable terms to us, seasonality, supply, weather and logistics disruptions and other factors and uncertainties inherent in the transportation, storage, terminalling and marketing of crude oil, refined products and renewable fuels. |
· |
Increases and/or decreases in the prices of the products we sell could adversely impact the amount of borrowing available for working capital under our credit agreement, which credit agreement has borrowing base limitations and advance rates. |
· |
We are exposed to trade credit risk and risk associated with our trade credit support in the ordinary course of our business. |
· |
The condition of credit markets may adversely affect our liquidity. |
· |
Our credit agreement and the indentures governing our senior notes contain operating and financial covenants, and our credit agreement contains borrowing base requirements. A failure to comply with the operating and financial covenants in our credit agreement, the indentures and any future financing agreements could impact our access to bank loans and other sources of financing as well as our ability to pursue our business activities. |
· |
A significant increase in interest rates could adversely affect our ability to service our indebtedness. |
· |
Our gasoline station and convenience store business could expose us to an increase in consumer litigation and result in an unfavorable outcome or settlement of one or more lawsuits where insurance proceeds are insufficient or otherwise unavailable. |
· |
Our business could expose us to litigation and result in an unfavorable outcome or settlement of one or more lawsuits where insurance proceeds are insufficient or otherwise unavailable. |
· |
Adverse developments in the areas where we conduct our business could have a material adverse effect on such businesses and can reduce our ability to make distributions to our unitholders. |
4
· |
A serious disruption to our information technology systems could significantly limit our ability to manage and operate our business efficiently. |
· |
We are exposed to performance risk in our supply chain. |
· |
Our business is subject to both federal and state environmental and non-environmental regulations which could have a material adverse effect on such businesses. |
· |
Our general partner and its affiliates have conflicts of interest and limited fiduciary duties, which could permit them to favor their own interests to the detriment of our unitholders. |
· |
Unitholders have limited voting rights and are not entitled to elect our general partner or its directors or remove our general partner without the consent of the holders of at least 66 2/3% of the outstanding units (including units held by our general partner and its affiliates), which could lower the trading price of our common units. |
· |
Our tax treatment depends on our status as a partnership for federal income tax purposes. |
· |
Unitholders may be required to pay taxes on their share of our income even if they do not receive any cash distributions from us. |
Readers are cautioned not to place undue reliance on forward‑looking statements, which speak only as of the date hereof. We undertake no obligation to publicly update or revise any forward‑looking statements after the date they are made, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise.
Available Information
We make available free of charge through our website, www.globalp.com, our Annual Reports on Form 10‑K, Quarterly Reports on Form 10‑Q, Current Reports on Form 8‑K and amendments to those reports filed or furnished pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 as soon as reasonably practicable after we electronically file or furnish such material with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”). These documents are also available at the SEC’s website at www.sec.gov. Our website also includes our Code of Business Conduct and Ethics, our Governance Guidelines and the charters of our Audit Committee and Compensation Committee.
A copy of any of these documents will be provided without charge upon written request to the General Counsel, Global Partners LP, P.O. Box 9161, 800 South Street, Suite 500, Waltham, MA 02454; fax (781) 398‑4165.
5
References in this Annual Report on Form 10‑K to “Global Partners LP,” “Partnership,” “we,” “our,” “us” or like terms refer to Global Partners LP and its subsidiaries. References to “our general partner” refer to Global GP LLC.
Items 1. and 2. Business and Properties.
Overview
We are a midstream logistics and marketing master limited partnership formed in March 2005 engaged in the purchasing, selling, storing and logistics of transporting petroleum and related products, including gasoline and gasoline blendstocks (such as ethanol), distillates (such as home heating oil, diesel and kerosene), residual oil, renewable fuels, crude oil, natural gas and propane. We own, control or have access to one of the largest terminal networks of refined petroleum products and renewable fuels in Massachusetts, Maine, Connecticut, Vermont, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, New York, New Jersey and Pennsylvania (collectively, the “Northeast”). We are one of the largest distributors of gasoline, distillates, residual oil and renewable fuels to wholesalers, retailers and commercial customers in the New England states and New York. We are also one of the largest independent owners, suppliers and operators of gasoline stations and convenience stores in these areas. As of December 31, 2016, we had a portfolio of 1,458 owned, leased and/or supplied gasoline stations, including 248 directly operated convenience stores, in the Northeast, Maryland and Virginia. We also receive revenue from convenience store sales and gasoline station rental income. In addition, we own transload and storage terminals in North Dakota and Oregon that extend our origin‑to‑destination capabilities from the mid‑continent region of the United States and Canada.
We purchase refined petroleum products, renewable fuels, crude oil, natural gas and propane primarily from domestic and foreign refiners and ethanol producers, crude oil producers, major and independent oil companies and trading companies. We operate our business under three segments: (i) Wholesale, (ii) Gasoline Distribution and Station Operations (“GDSO”) and (iii) Commercial.
Global GP LLC, our general partner, manages our operations and activities and employs our officers and substantially all of our personnel, except for most of our gasoline station and convenience store employees who are employed by our wholly owned subsidiary, Global Montello Group Corp. (“GMG”).
Recent Developments and 2016 Transactions
Sale of Terminal Assets—On February 2, 2017, we began soliciting proposals for the potential sale of six refined petroleum products terminals located in New England, New York and Pennsylvania. The assets consist of product terminals that represent 1.1 million barrels of aggregate storage capacity. These assets did not meet the criteria to be presented as held for sale as of December 31, 2016.
Sale of Natural Gas and Electricity Business—On February 1, 2017, we completed the sale of our natural gas marketing and electricity brokerage businesses for approximately $17.3 million, subject to customary closing adjustments. Net proceeds from the sale amounted to approximately $16.3 million. The sale of our natural gas marketing and electricity brokerage businesses reflects our ongoing program to monetize non-strategic assets that are not fundamental to our growth strategy. Prior to the sale, the results of our natural gas marketing and electricity brokerage business were included in our Commercial segment.
Early Termination of Railcar Sublease—On December 21, 2016 (effective December 31, 2016), we voluntarily terminated early a sublease with a counterparty for 1,610 railcars that were underutilized due to unfavorable market conditions in the crude oil by rail market. Separately, we entered into a fleet management services agreement (effective January 1, 2017) with the counterparty, pursuant to which we will provide future railcar storage, freight, cleaning, insurance and other services on behalf of the counterparty. As a result of the sublease termination, we recognized one-time discounted lease exit and termination expenses of $80.7 million in the fourth quarter of 2016 consisting of
6
(i) $61.7 million cash consideration, (ii) $10.7 million of accrued incremental costs relating to our obligations under the sublease, and (iii) $8.3 million associated with derecognizing accumulated prepaid rent.
The $61.7 million cash consideration represents a discount of $10.2 million from $71.9 million in railcar lease payments that we would have been obligated to pay over the next three years. The termination of the sublease eliminates future lease payments related to these railcars of approximately $30.0 million, $29.0 million and $13.0 million in 2017, 2018 and 2019, respectively. In addition to the discounted lease termination payment, the one-time expense includes costs for future railcar storage, freight, cleaning, insurance and other services, as well as certain non-cash accounting adjustments associated with the early termination. Please read Note 2 of Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements for additional information.
In connection with the sublease termination, we amended our credit agreement to permit the use of borrowings to make the early termination payment. The amendment also accelerates the step-down in the combined total leverage ratio from 5.50 times to 5.0 times effective with the quarter ended December 31, 2016 and continuing through maturity.
Goodwill and Long-Lived Asset Impairment—In 2016, we recognized a goodwill impairment charge of $121.7 million related to the Wholesale reporting unit and a long-lived asset impairment charge of $28.2 million, substantially all of which is due to crude oil related activities. Please read Note 2 of Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements for a description of the facts and circumstances related to the impairment charges.
Dock Expansion and Tank Conversion—In the third quarter of 2016, we completed the measures at our West Coast facility, including cleaning of tanks and associated infrastructure, to convert the facility from crude oil to ethanol transloading and began transloading ethanol.
Sale of Gasoline Stations—On August 22, 2016, Drake Petroleum Company, Inc., a subsidiary of ours, sold to Mirabito Holdings, Inc. 30 gasoline stations and convenience stores located in New York and Pennsylvania (the “Drake Sites”) for an aggregate total cash purchase price of approximately $40.0 million. Please read Note 5 of Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements. In connection with closing, the parties entered into long-term supply contracts for branded and unbranded gasoline and other petroleum products. The Drake Sites are a portion of the sites that were acquired by us in connection with the acquisition of Warren Equities, Inc. (“Warren”) in January 7, 2015.
In addition, beginning in April 2016, we retained a real estate firm to coordinate the sales of non-strategic GDSO sites which are part of a divestiture program. As of December 31, 2016, the divestiture program included approximately 80 sites, 29 of which we have sold and 30 of which met the criteria to be presented as held for sale (see Note 5 of Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements). Through February 2017, the criteria to be presented as held for sale was met for an additional 9 sites with a net book value of $4.8 million at December 31, 2016. Assets held for sale are expected to be sold within the next 12 months (see Note 24 of Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements).
Sale Leaseback Transaction—On June 29, 2016, we sold real property assets, including the buildings, improvements and appurtenances thereto, at 30 gasoline stations and convenience stores located in Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Rhode Island for a purchase price of approximately $63.5 million. In connection with the sale, we entered into a master unitary lease agreement with the buyer to lease back the real property assets sold with respect to these sites. Please read Note 6 of Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements for additional information.
Expanded Retail Network—In April 2016, we expanded our gasoline station and convenience-store network in Western Massachusetts with the addition of 22 leased retail sites. Located in the Pittsfield and Springfield areas, these sites were added through long-term leases.
Operating Segments
We purchase refined petroleum products, renewable fuels, crude oil, natural gas and propane primarily from domestic and foreign refiners and ethanol producers, crude oil producers, major and independent oil companies and trading companies. We operate our business under three segments: (i) Wholesale, (ii) GDSO and (iii) Commercial. In
7
2016, our Wholesale, GDSO and Commercial sales accounted for approximately 50%, 42% and 8% of our total sales, respectively.
Wholesale
In our Wholesale segment, we engage in the logistics of selling, gathering, storage and transportation of refined petroleum products, renewable fuels, crude oil and propane. We transport these products by railcars, barges and/or pipelines pursuant to spot or long‑term contracts. We aggregate crude oil by truck or pipeline in the mid‑continent region of the United States and Canada, transport it by rail and ship it by barge to refiners. We sell home heating oil, branded and unbranded gasoline and gasoline blendstocks, diesel, kerosene, residual oil and propane to home heating oil and propane retailers and wholesale distributors. Generally, customers use their own vehicles or contract carriers to take delivery of the gasoline and distillates at bulk terminals and inland storage facilities that we own or control or at which we have throughput or exchange arrangements. Ethanol is shipped primarily by rail and by barge.
Gasoline Distribution and Station Operations
In our GDSO segment, gasoline distribution includes sales of branded and unbranded gasoline to gasoline station operators and sub-jobbers. Station operations include (i) convenience stores, (ii) rental income from gasoline stations leased to dealers, from commissioned agents and from cobranding arrangements and (iii) sundries (such as car wash sales, lottery and ATM commissions).
As of December 31, 2016, we had a portfolio of owned, leased and/or supplied gasoline stations, primarily in the Northeast, that consisted of the following:
Company operated |
|
248 |
|
Commissioned agents |
|
281 |
|
Lessee dealers |
|
246 |
|
Contract dealers |
|
683 |
|
Total |
|
1,458 |
|
Commercial
In our Commercial segment, we include sales and deliveries to end user customers in the public sector and to large commercial and industrial end users of unbranded gasoline, home heating oil, diesel, kerosene, residual oil, bunker fuel and natural gas. In the case of public sector commercial and industrial end user customers, we sell products primarily either through a competitive bidding process or through contracts of various terms. We generally arrange for the delivery of the product to the customer’s designated location, and we respond to publicly issued requests for product proposals and quotes. Our Commercial segment also includes sales of custom blended fuels delivered by barges or from a terminal dock to ships through bunkering activity.
8
Products
General
The following table presents our product sales and other revenues as a percentage of our consolidated sales for the years ended December 31:
|
|
2016 |
|
2015 |
|
2014 |
|
Gasoline sales: gasoline and gasoline blendstocks (such as ethanol) |
|
64 |
% |
59 |
% |
60 |
% |
Crude oil sales and crude oil logistics revenue |
|
7 |
% |
12 |
% |
14 |
% |
Distillates (home heating oil, diesel and kerosene), residual oil, natural gas and propane sales |
|
24 |
% |
25 |
% |
25 |
% |
Convenience store sales, rental income and sundry sales |
|
5 |
% |
4 |
% |
1 |
% |
Total |
|
100 |
% |
100 |
% |
100 |
% |
Gasoline. We sell all grades of branded and unbranded gasoline and we sell gasoline blendstocks, such as ethanol, that comply with seasonal and geographical requirements in the areas in which we market.
Crude Oil. We engage in the purchasing, selling, storing and logistics of transporting domestic and Canadian crude oil and other products via rail and barge from the mid‑continent region of the United States and Canada for distribution to refiners and other customers.
Distillates. Distillates are primarily divided into home heating oil, diesel and kerosene. In 2016, sales of home heating oil, diesel and kerosene accounted for approximately 53%, 46% and 1%, respectively, of our total volume of distillates sold. The distillates we sell are used primarily for fuel for trucks and off‑road construction equipment and for space heating of residential and commercial buildings.
We sell generic home heating oil and Heating Oil Plus™, our proprietary premium branded heating oil. Heating Oil Plus™ is electronically blended at the delivery facility. In 2016, approximately 8% of the volume of home heating oil we sold to wholesale distributors was Heating Oil Plus™. In addition, we sell the additive used to create Heating Oil Plus™ to some wholesale distributors, make injection systems available to them and provide technical support to assist them with blending. We also educate the sales force of our customers to better prepare them for marketing our products to their customers.
In 2016, we sold home heating oil, including Heating Oil Plus™, to approximately 790 wholesale distributors and retailers. We have a fixed price sales program that we market primarily to wholesale distributors and retailers which uses the New York Mercantile Exchange (“NYMEX”) heating oil contract as the pricing benchmark and as the vehicle to manage the commodity risk. Please read “—Commodity Risk Management.” In 2016, approximately 33% of our home heating oil volume was sold using forward fixed price contracts. A forward fixed price contract requires our customer to purchase a specific volume at a specific price during a specific period. The remaining home heating oil volume was sold on either a posted price or a price based on various indices which, in both instances, reflect current market conditions.
We sell generic diesel and Diesel One®, our proprietary premium diesel fuel product. We offer marketing and technical support for those customers who purchase Diesel One®.
Residual Oil. We supply residual oil to industrial, commercial and marine customers. We specially blend product for users in accordance with their individual power specifications and for marine transport.
Natural Gas. We supply natural gas to industrial and commercial customers.
Propane. We sell propane to home heating oil and propane retailers and wholesale distributors primarily from our rail‑fed propane storage and distribution facility near our Church Street terminal in Albany, New York.
9
Convenience Store Items and Sundries. We sell a broad selection of food, beverages, snacks, grocery and non‑food merchandise at our convenience store locations and generate sundry sales, such as car wash sales, lottery and ATM commissions at our convenience store locations.
Significant Customers
None of our customers accounted for greater than 10% of total sales for years ended December 31, 2016 and 2015. We had one significant customer, ExxonMobil Corporation (“ExxonMobil”), that accounted for approximately 17% of our total sales for the year ended December 31, 2014.
Assets
Terminals
As of December 31, 2016, we owned, leased or maintained dedicated storage facilities at 25 bulk terminals, each with the capacity of more than 50,000 barrels, with a collective storage capacity of 12.2 million barrels. Twenty‑two of these bulk terminals are located throughout the Northeast. Some of our storage tankage is versatile, allowing us to switch tankage from one product to another.
In addition to refined products, we also own or operate two rail facilities in New York and Oregon capable of handling crude oil and ethanol and two rail facilities in North Dakota capable of handling crude oil. We also maintain dedicated storage at one marine terminal in New York capable of handling crude oil. At select locations, we have capacity to store renewable fuels, and in Albany, New York, we also have an additional rail‑fed propane storage terminal.
The bulk terminals and inland storage facilities from which we distribute product are supplied by ship, barge, truck, pipeline and/or rail. The inland storage facilities, which we use primarily to store distillates, are supplied with product delivered by truck from bulk terminals. Our customers receive product from our network of bulk terminals and inland storage facilities via truck, barge, rail and/or pipeline.
As of December 31, 2016, we supported our rail activity with a fleet of approximately 1,400 leased railcars, which reflects our early termination of a sublease for 1,610 railcars from a third party. Please read “—Recent Developments and 2016 Transactions—Early Termination of Railcar Sublease.” The makeup of this fleet is split between general‑purpose cars, typically used for light crude oil, ethanol and refined products, and coiled, insulated cars, typically used for heavy crude oil and residual oil.
In connection with our business, we may lease or otherwise secure the right to use certain third-party assets (such as railcars, pipelines and barges). We lease railcars through various lease arrangements with various expiration dates, and we lease barges through various time charter lease arrangement also with various expiration dates. We also have various pipeline connection agreements that extend for five to seven years. Please read Note 9, “Commitments and Contingencies,” for additional information on our railcar leases, barge leases and pipeline commitments.
Many of our bulk terminals operate 24 hours a day and consist of multiple storage tanks and automated truck loading equipment. These automated systems monitor terminal access, volumetric allocations, credit control and carrier certification through the remote identification of customers. In addition, some of the bulk terminals from which we market are equipped with truck loading racks capable of providing automated blending and additive packages which meet our customers’ specific requirements.
Throughput arrangements allow storage of product at terminals owned by others. Our customers can load product at these terminals, and we pay the owners of these terminals fees for services rendered in connection with the receipt, storage and handling of such product. Compensation to the terminal owners may be fixed or based upon the volume of our product that is delivered and sold at the terminal.
10
We have exchange agreements with customers and suppliers. An exchange is a contractual agreement where the parties exchange product at their respective terminals or facilities. For example, we (or our customers) receive product that is owned by our exchange partner from such party’s facility or terminal, and we deliver the same volume of our product to such party (or to such party’s customers) out of one of the terminals in our terminal network. Generally, both sides of an exchange transaction pay a handling fee (similar to a throughput fee), and often one party also pays a location differential that covers any excess transportation costs incurred by the other party in supplying product to the location at which the first party receives product. Other differentials that may occur in exchanges (and result in additional payments) include product value differentials and timing differentials.
Gasoline Stations
As of December 31, 2016, we had a portfolio of 1,458 owned, leased and/or supplied gasoline stations, including 248 convenience stores, primarily in the Northeast.
At our company‑operated stores, we operate the gasoline stations and convenience stores with our employees, and we set the retail price of gasoline at the station. At commissioned agent locations, we own the gasoline inventory, and we set the retail price of gasoline at the station and pay the commissioned agent a fee related to the gallons sold. We receive rental income from commissioned agent leased gasoline stations for the leasing of the convenience store premises, repair bays and other businesses that may be conducted by the commissioned agent. At dealer‑leased locations, the dealer purchases gasoline from us, and the dealer sets the retail price of gasoline at the dealer’s station. We also receive rental income from (i) dealer‑leased gasoline stations and (ii) cobranding arrangements. We also supply gasoline to locations owned and/or leased by independent contract dealers. Additionally, we have contractual relationships with distributors in certain New England states pursuant to which we source and supply these distributors’ gasoline stations with ExxonMobil‑branded gasoline.
Supply
Our products come from some of the major energy companies in the world as well as North American crude oil producers. Products can be sourced from the United States, Canada, South America, Europe, Russia and occasionally from Asia. Most of our products are delivered by water, pipeline, rail or truck. During 2016, we purchased an average of approximately 335,000 barrels per day of refined petroleum products, renewable fuels, crude oil, natural gas and propane. We enter into supply agreements with these suppliers on a term basis or a spot basis. With respect to trade terms, our supply purchases vary depending on the particular contract from prompt payment (usually two days) to net 30 days. Please read “—Commodity Risk Management.” We obtain our convenience store inventory from traditional suppliers.
Seasonality
Due to the nature of our business and our reliance, in part, on consumer travel and spending patterns, we may experience more demand for gasoline during the late spring and summer months than during the fall and winter. Travel and recreational activities are typically higher in these months in the geographic areas in which we operate, increasing the demand for gasoline. Therefore, our volumes in gasoline are typically higher in the second and third quarters of the calendar year. As demand for some of our refined petroleum products, specifically home heating oil and residual oil for space heating purposes, is generally greater during the winter months, heating oil and residual oil volumes are generally higher during the first and fourth quarters of the calendar year. These factors may result in fluctuations in our quarterly operating results.
Commodity Risk Management
When we take title to the products that we sell, we are exposed to commodity risk. Commodity risk is the risk of unfavorable market fluctuations in the price of commodities such as refined petroleum products, renewable fuels, crude oil, natural gas and propane. We endeavor to minimize commodity risk in connection with our daily operations through hedging by selling exchange‑traded futures contracts on regulated exchanges or using other over‑the‑counter derivatives, and then lift hedges as we sell the product for physical delivery to third parties. Products are generally
11
purchased and sold at spot market prices, fixed prices or indexed prices. While we use these transactions to seek to maintain a position that is substantially balanced within our commodity product purchase and sales activities, we may experience net unbalanced positions for short periods of time as a result of variances in daily purchases and sales and transportation and delivery schedules as well as other logistical issues inherent in the business, such as weather conditions. In connection with managing these positions, we are aided by maintaining a constant presence in the marketplace. We also engage in a controlled trading program for up to an aggregate of 250,000 barrels of commodity products at any one point in time. Our policy is generally to purchase only products for which we have a market and to structure our sales contracts so that price fluctuations do not materially affect our profit. While our policies are designed to minimize market risk, as well as inherent basis risk, exposure to fluctuations in market conditions remains.
In addition, because a portion of our crude oil business may be conducted in Canadian dollars, we may use foreign currency derivatives to minimize the risks of unfavorable exchange rates. These instruments may include foreign currency exchange contracts and forwards. In conjunction with entering into the commodity derivative, we may enter into a foreign currency derivative to hedge the resulting foreign currency risk. These foreign currency derivatives are generally short‑term in nature and not designated for hedge accounting.
Operating results are sensitive to a number of factors. Such factors include commodity location, grades of product, individual customer demand for grades or location of product, localized market price structures, availability of transportation facilities, daily delivery volumes that vary from expected quantities and timing and costs to deliver the commodity to the customer. Basis risk is the inherent market price risk created when a commodity of a certain grade or location is purchased, sold or exchanged as compared to a purchase, sale or exchange of commodity at a different time or place, including transportation costs and timing differentials. We attempt to reduce our exposure to basis risk by grouping our purchase and sale activities by geographical region and commodity quality in order to stay balanced within such designated region. However, basis risk cannot be entirely eliminated, and basis exposure, particularly in backward markets (when prices for future deliveries are lower than current prices) or other adverse market conditions, can adversely affect our financial condition, results of operations and cash available for distribution to our unitholders.
With respect to the pricing of commodities, we utilize exchange-traded futures contracts and other derivative instruments to minimize or hedge the impact of commodity price changes on our inventories and forward fixed price commitments. Any hedge ineffectiveness is reflected in our results of operations. We utilize regulated exchanges, including the NYMEX, the Chicago Mercantile Exchange (“CME”) and the Intercontinental‑Exchange (“ICE”), which are exchanges for the respective commodities that each trades, thereby reducing potential delivery and supply risks. Generally, our practice is to close all exchange positions rather than to make or receive physical deliveries. With respect to other products such as ethanol, which may not have a correlated exchange contract, we enter into derivative agreements with counterparties that we believe have a strong credit profile, in order to hedge market fluctuations and/or lock‑in margins relative to our commitments.
We monitor processes and procedures to prevent unauthorized trading by our personnel and to maintain substantial balance between purchases and sales or future delivery obligations. We can provide no assurance, however, that these steps will eliminate commodity risk or detect and prevent all violations of such trading processes and procedures, particularly if deception or other intentional misconduct is involved.
In our Wholesale segment, we obtain Renewable Identification Numbers (“RINs”) in connection with our purchase of ethanol which is used for our bulk supply requirements or for blending with gasoline through our terminal system. A RIN is a renewable identification number associated with government‑mandated renewable fuel standards. To evidence that the required volume of renewable fuel is blended with gasoline and diesel motor vehicle fuels, obligated parties must retire sufficient RINs to cover their Renewable Volume Obligation (“RVO”). Our U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) obligations relative to renewable fuel reporting are largely limited to the foreign gasoline and diesel that we may import and a small amount of blending operations at certain facilities. As a wholesaler of transportation fuels through our terminals, we separate RINs from renewable fuel through blending with gasoline and can use those separated RINs to settle our RVO. While the annual compliance period for the RVO is a calendar year and the settlement of the RVO typically occurs by March 31 of the following year, the settlement of the RVO can occur, upon certain EPA deferral actions, more than one year after the close of the compliance period. Operating results are sensitive to the timing associated with our RIN position relative to our RVO at a point in time, and we may recognize a
12
mark‑to‑market liability for a shortfall in RINs at the end of each reporting period. To the extent that we do not have a sufficient number of RINs to satisfy our RVO as of the balance sheet date, we charge cost of sales for such deficiency based on the market price of the RINs as of the balance sheet date and record a liability representing our obligation to purchase RINs.
For more information about our policies and procedures to minimize our exposure to market risk, including commodity market risk, please read Item 7A, “Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk.”
Competition
In each of our operating segments, we encounter varying degrees of competition based on product and geographic locations and available logistics. Our competitors include terminal companies, major integrated oil companies and their marketing affiliates, wholesalers, producers and independent marketers of varying sizes, financial resources and experience. In our Northeast market, we compete in various product lines and for all customers. In the residual oil markets, however, where product is heated when stored and cannot be delivered long distances, we face less competition because of the strategic locations of our residual oil storage facilities. We supply oil to industrial, commercial and marine customers. We compete with other transloaders in our logistics activities including, in part, storage and transportation of crude oil, renewable fuels and gasoline and the movement of product by alternative means (e.g., pipelines). We also compete with natural gas suppliers and marketers in our home heating oil, residual oil and propane product lines. Bunkering requires facilities at ports to service vessels. In various other geographic markets, particularly with respect to unbranded gasoline and distillates markets, we compete with integrated refiners, merchant refiners and regional marketing companies. Our retail gasoline stations compete with unbranded and branded retail gasoline stations as well as supermarket and warehouse stores that sell gasoline.
Employees
To carry out our operations, our general partner and certain of our operating subsidiaries employed approximately 1,770 full‑time employees as of December 31, 2016, of which approximately 100 employees were represented by labor unions under collective bargaining agreements with various expiration dates. We may not be able to renegotiate the collective bargaining agreements when they expire on satisfactory terms or at all. A failure to do so may increase our costs. In addition, existing labor agreements may not prevent a future strike or work stoppage, and any work stoppage could negatively affect our results of operations and financial condition. We believe we have good relations with our employees.
We have a shared services agreement with GPC. The services provided among these entities by any employees shared pursuant to these agreements do not limit the ability of such employees to provide all services necessary to properly run our business. Please read Item 13, “Certain Relationships and Related Transactions, and Director Independence—Shared Services Agreements.”
Title to Properties, Permits and Licenses
We believe we have all of the assets needed, including leases, permits and licenses, to operate our business in all material respects. With respect to any consents, permits or authorizations that have not been obtained, we believe that the failure to obtain these consents, permits or authorizations will have no material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations or cash available for distribution to our unitholders.
We believe we have satisfactory title to all of our assets. Title to property, including certain sites within our GDSO segment, may be subject to encumbrances, including repurchase rights and use, operating and environmental covenants and restrictions. We believe that none of these encumbrances will materially detract from the value of our properties or from our interest in these properties, nor will they materially interfere with the use of these properties in the operation of our business.
The name GLOBAL, our logos and the name Global Petroleum Corp. are our trademarks. In addition, we have trademarks for our premium fuels and additives, Diesel One®, Heating Oil Plus™ and SubZero®. We also have the
13
following trademarks for our convenience store business: ALLTOWN®, YOUR TOWN.MYTOWN.ALLTOWN!®, CENTRE ST. KITCHEN®, Buck Stop®, Fast Freddie’s® and Mr. Mike’s®, and the pending trademark, ALLTOWN MARKET™. In connection with the January 7, 2015 acquisition of Warren, we acquired the following trademarks: Deli Joe’s®, Deli Joe’s logo, Diamond Fuels®, Xtra®, XtraCafé logo, Xtra Mart® and the Xtramart logo.
Facilities
We lease office space for our principal executive office in Waltham, Massachusetts. This lease expires on July 31, 2026 with extension options through July 31, 2036. In addition, we lease office space in Branford, Connecticut. This lease expires on July 31, 2024 with extension options through July 31, 2034.
Environmental
General
Our business of supplying refined petroleum products, renewable fuels, crude oil and propane, and other business activities, involves a number of activities that are subject to extensive and stringent environmental laws. As part of our business, we own and operate various petroleum storage and distribution facilities and gasoline stations and must comply with environmental laws at the federal, state and local levels, which increases the cost of operating terminals and gasoline stations and our business generally. In addition, these laws are frequently modified or revised to impose new obligations.
Our operations also utilize a number of petroleum storage facilities and distribution facilities, including rail transloading facilities and gasoline stations that we do not own or operate, but at which refined petroleum products, renewable fuels, crude oil and propane are stored. We utilize these facilities through several different contractual arrangements, including leases and throughput and terminalling services agreements. If facilities with which we contract that are owned and operated by third parties fail to comply with environmental laws, they could be shut down, requiring us to incur costs to use alternative facilities.
Environmental laws and regulations can restrict or impact our business activities in many ways, such as:
· |
requiring remedial action to mitigate releases of hydrocarbons, hazardous substances or wastes caused by our operations or attributable to former operators; |
· |
requiring our operations to obtain, maintain and renew permits which can obligate us to incur capital expenditures to comply with environmental control requirements and which may restrict our operations; capital expenditures to comply with environmental control requirements; |
· |
enjoining the operations of facilities deemed in noncompliance with environmental laws and regulations; and |
· |
inability to renew permits on satisfactory terms and conditions. |
Failure to comply with environmental laws and regulations may trigger a variety of administrative, civil and criminal enforcement measures, including the assessment of monetary penalties, the imposition of remedial requirements and the issuance of orders enjoining future operations. Certain environmental statutes impose strict, joint and several liability for costs required to clean up and restore sites where hydrocarbons, hazardous substances or wastes have been released or disposed of. Moreover, neighboring landowners and other third parties may file claims for personal injury and property damage allegedly caused by the release of hydrocarbons, hazardous substances or other wastes into the environment.
Environmental operating permits are, or may be, required for our operations under applicable environmental laws and regulations. These operating permits are subject to modification, renewal and revocation. We regularly monitor and review our operations, procedures and policies for compliance with permits, laws and regulations. Risk of
14
noncompliance, permit interpretation, permit modification, renewal of permits on less favorable terms, judicial or administrative challenges of permits or permit revocation are inherent in the operation of our business, as it is with other companies engaged in similar businesses.
The trend in environmental regulation has been to place more restrictions and limitations on activities that may affect the environment over time. As a result, there can be no assurance as to the amount or timing of future expenditures for environmental compliance or remediation, and actual future expenditures may be different from the amounts we currently anticipate. We try to anticipate future regulatory requirements that might be imposed and plan accordingly to remain in compliance with changing environmental laws and regulations and minimize the costs of such compliance.
We do not believe that compliance with federal, state or local environmental laws and regulations will have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations or cash available for distribution to our unitholders. We can provide no assurance, however, that future events, such as changes in existing laws (including changes in the interpretation of existing laws), the promulgation of new laws, or the development or discovery of new facts or conditions will not cause us to incur significant costs or will not have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations or cash available for distribution to our unitholders.
For additional information concerning certain environmental proceedings, please read Item 3. “Legal Proceedings.”
Hazardous Material Releases and Waste Handling
Our business is subject to laws relating to the release of hazardous substances into the water or soils and include measures to control pollution of the environment. For instance, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, as amended, also known as CERCLA or the Superfund law, and comparable state laws impose liability, without regard to fault or the legality of the original conduct, on certain classes of persons who are considered to be responsible for the release of hazardous substances into the environment. Under the Superfund law, these persons may be subject to joint and several liability for the costs of cleaning up hazardous substances that have been released into the environment, for damages to natural resources and for the costs of certain health studies. In the course of our ordinary operations, we may generate, store or otherwise handle materials and wastes that fall within the Superfund law’s definition of a hazardous substance and, as a result, we may be jointly and severally liable under the Superfund law for all or part of the costs required to clean up sites at which those hazardous substances have been released into the environment. Under these laws, we could be required to remove or remediate previously disposed wastes, including wastes disposed of or released by prior owners or operators, clean up contaminated property, including groundwater contaminated by prior owners or operators, or make capital improvements to prevent future contamination.
Our operations generate a variety of wastes, including some hazardous wastes that are subject to the federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, as amended (“RCRA”) and comparable state laws. These regulations impose detailed requirements for the handling, storage, treatment and disposal of hazardous waste. Our operations also generate solid wastes which are regulated under state law or the less stringent solid waste requirements of the federal Solid Waste Disposal Act. We believe that our operations are in substantial compliance with the existing requirements of RCRA, the Solid Waste Disposal Act and similar state and local laws, and the cost involved in complying with these requirements is not material. We also incur ongoing costs for monitoring groundwater and/or remediation of contamination at several facilities that we operate.
Above Ground Storage Tanks
Above ground tanks that contain petroleum and other hazardous substances are subject to comprehensive regulation under environmental laws. Generally, these laws impose liability for releases and require secondary containment systems for tanks or that the operators take alternative precautions to ensure that no contamination results from tank leaks or spills. We believe we are in substantial compliance with environmental laws and regulations applicable to above ground storage tanks.
15
Under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (“OPA”) and comparable state laws, responsible parties for a regulated facility from which oil products so regulated are discharged may be subject to strict, joint and several liability for removal costs and certain other consequences of an oil spill such as natural resource damages, where the spill is into navigable waters or along shorelines.
Under the authority of the federal Clean Water Act, the EPA imposes specific requirements for Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure plans that are designed to prevent, and minimize the impacts of, releases of oil and other products from above ground storage tanks. We believe we are in substantial compliance with regulations pursuant to OPA, the Clean Water Act and similar state laws. We follow the American Petroleum Institute’s inspection, maintenance and repair standard applicable to our above ground storage tanks.
Underground Storage Tanks
We are required to make financial expenditures to comply with regulations governing underground storage tanks (“USTs”) which store gasoline or other regulated substances adopted by federal, state and local regulatory agencies. Pursuant to RCRA, the EPA has established a comprehensive regulatory program for the detection, prevention, investigation and cleanup of leaking USTs. State or local agencies are often delegated the responsibility for implementing the federal program or developing and implementing equivalent or stricter state or local regulations. We have a comprehensive program in place for performing routine tank testing and other compliance activities which are intended to promptly detect and investigate any potential releases. We believe we are in substantial compliance with applicable environmental requirements, including those applicable to our USTs. Compliance with existing and future environmental laws regulating UST systems of the kind we use may require significant capital expenditures in the future. These expenditures may include upgrades, modifications, and the replacement of USTs and related piping to comply with current and future regulatory requirements designed to ensure the detection, prevention, investigation and remediation of leaks and spills.
Water Discharges
The federal Clean Water Act imposes restrictions regarding the discharge of pollutants, including oil and refined petroleum products, renewable fuels and crude oil, into navigable waters. This law and comparable state laws may require permits for discharging pollutants into state and federal waters and impose substantial liabilities and remedial obligations for noncompliance. The EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers (“Corps”) released a rule to revise the definition of “waters of the United States” (“WOTUS”) for all Clean Water Act programs, which went into effect in August 2015. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has stayed the WOTUS rule nationwide pending further action of the court. In response to this decision, the EPA and the Corps resumed nationwide use of the agencies’ prior regulations defining the term “waters of the United States.” Those regulations will be implemented as they were prior to the effective date of the new WOTUS rule. In January 2017, the Supreme Court agreed to review the Sixth Circuit’s finding that it has jurisdiction to hear challenges to the rule. The WOTUS rule could significantly expand federal control of land and water resources across the United States, triggering substantial additional permitting and regulatory requirements. If the WOTUS rule survives judicial review in its current form, it could restrict exploration and production efforts by producers whose crude oil and other materials we transport. That restriction of supply could adversely affect our financial position, results of operations or cash available for distribution to our unitholders.
EPA regulations also may require us to obtain permits to discharge certain storm water runoff. Storm water discharge permits also may be required by certain states in which we operate. We believe that we hold the required permits and operate in material compliance with those permits. While we have experienced permit discharge exceedences at some of our terminals, we do not expect any noncompliance with existing permits and foreseeable new permit requirements to have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations or cash available for distribution to our unitholders.
Air Emissions
Under the federal Clean Air Act (the “CAA”) and comparable state and local laws, permits are typically required to emit regulated air pollutants into the atmosphere above certain thresholds. We believe that we currently hold
16
or have applied for all necessary air permits and that we are in substantial compliance with applicable air laws and regulations. Although we can give no assurances, we are aware of no changes to air quality regulations that will have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations or cash available for distribution to our unitholders.
Various federal, state and local agencies have the authority to prescribe product quality specifications for the petroleum products and renewable fuels that we sell, largely in an effort to reduce air pollution. Failure to comply with these regulations can result in substantial penalties. Although we can give no assurances, we believe we are currently in substantial compliance with these regulations.
Changes in product quality specifications could require us to incur additional handling costs or reduce our throughput volume. For instance, different product specifications for different markets could require the construction of additional storage. Also, states in which we operate have considered limiting the sulfur content of home heating oil. If such regulations are enacted, this could restrict the supply of available heating oil, which could increase our costs to purchase such oil or limit our ability to sell heating oil.
In addition, the CAA and similar state laws impose requirements on emissions to the air from motor fueling activities in certain areas of the country, including those that do not meet state or national ambient air quality standards. These laws may require the installation of vapor recovery systems to control emissions of volatile organic compounds to the air during the motor fueling process.
In November 2015, the EPA also revised the existing National Ambient Air Quality Standards (“NAAQS”) for ground‑level ozone, which made the standard more stringent. Nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds are recognized as pre‑cursors of ozone, and emissions of those materials are associated with mobile sources and the petroleum industry. The EPA has not yet designated which areas of the country are out of attainment with the new ground level ozone standard, and it will take the states several years to develop compliance plans for their non‑attainment areas. Several states have filed legal challenges to the new standard. If these challenges are unsuccessful, certain areas of the country previously in compliance with the various NAAQS, including areas where we operate, may be reclassified as non‑attainment. Such reclassification may make it more difficult to construct new or modified sources of air pollution in newly designated non‑attainment areas, or subject our existing operations to additional permitting requirements. While we are not able to determine the extent to which this new standard will impact our business at this time, it does have the potential to have a material impact on our operations and cost‑structure.
Climate Change
Federal climate change legislation in the United States appears unlikely in the near‑term. As a result, domestic efforts to curb greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions continue be led by the EPA GHG regulations and the efforts of states. To the extent that our operations are subject to the EPA’s GHG regulations, we may face increased capital and operating costs associated with new or expanded facilities. Significant expansions of our existing facilities or construction of new facilities may be subject to the CAA’s requirements for pollutants regulated under the Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V programs. Some of our facilities are also subject to the EPA’s Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases rule, and any further regulation may increase our operational costs.
Under a consent decree with states and environmental groups, the EPA is due to propose new source performance standards for GHG emissions from refineries. These standards could significantly increase the costs of constructing or adding capacity to refineries and may ultimately increase the costs or decrease the supply of refined products. Either of these events could have an adverse effect on our business. In May 2016, the EPA finalized New Source Performance Standards for methane and volatile organic compound emissions from certain activities in the oil and gas sector. This rule is currently subject to a pending judicial challenge in the D.C. Circuit. EPA also released a new definition of oil and gas sources, and new control guidance for reducing volatile organic compound emissions from existing oil and gas sources in certain ozone non‑attainment areas. Collectively, these rules could impose new compliance costs and additional permitting burdens on oil and gas operations, which could in turn affect the companies that produce the crude oil that we transport. Currently, however, it is not possible to estimate the likely financial impact of potential future regulation on our operations.
17
Under Subpart MM of the Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule (“MRR”), importers of petroleum products, including distillates, must report the GHG emissions that would result from the complete combustion of all imported products if such combustion would result in the emission of at least 25,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per year. We currently report under Subpart MM because of the volume of petroleum products we typically import. Compliance with the MRR does not substantially impact our operations. However, any change in regulations based on GHG emissions reported in compliance with MRR may limit our ability to import petroleum products or increase our costs to import such products.
Overall, there has been a trend towards increased regulation of GHGs and initiatives, both domestically and internationally, to limit GHG emissions. Future efforts to limit emissions associated with transportation fuels and heating fuels could reduce the market for, or pricing of, our products, and thus adversely impact our business. For example, at the 2015 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in Paris, the United States and nearly 200 other nations entered into an international climate agreement. Although this agreement does not create any binding obligations for nations to limit their GHG emissions, it does include pledges to voluntarily limit or reduce future emissions. The Paris Agreement became effective in November 2016, and the United States is one of over 100 nations that have indicated an intent to comply with the agreement. In addition, it should be noted that some scientists have concluded that increasing concentrations of GHG in the earth’s atmosphere may produce climate changes that have significant physical effects, such as increased frequency and severity of storms, droughts, and floods and other climatic events. If any of those effects were to occur, they could have an adverse effect on our assets and operations.
Convenience Store Regulations
Our convenience store operations are subject to extensive governmental laws and regulations that include legal restrictions on the sale of alcohol, tobacco and lottery products, food labelling, safety and health requirements and public accessibility, as well as sanitation, safety and fire standards. State and local regulatory agencies have the authority to approve, revoke, suspend or deny applications for, and renewals of, permits and licenses. Our operations are also subject to federal and state laws governing matters such as wage rates, overtime, working conditions and citizenship requirements. At the federal level, there are proposals under consideration from time to time to increase minimum wage rates and to introduce a system of mandated health insurance, each of which could adversely affect our results of operations. In June 2009, Congress gave the Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) broad authority to regulate tobacco products through passage of the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (“FSPTCA”). Under the FSPTCA, the FDA has passed regulations that, among other things, prohibit the sale of cigarettes or smokeless tobacco to anyone under the age of 18 years (state laws are permitted to set a higher minimum age); prohibit the sale of single cigarettes or packs with less than 20 cigarettes; and prohibit the sale or distribution of non‑tobacco items such as hats and t‑shirts with tobacco brands, names or logos. Governmental actions and regulations, such as these, could materially impact our retail price of cigarettes, cigarette unit volume and revenues, merchandise gross profit and overall customer traffic, which could in turn have a material adverse effect on our results of operations.
Ethanol Market
The market for ethanol is dependent on several economic incentives and regulatory mandates for blending ethanol into gasoline, including the availability of federal tax incentives, ethanol use mandates and oxygenate blending requirements. For instance, the Renewable Fuels Standard (“RFS”) requires that a certain amount of renewable fuels, such as ethanol, be utilized in transportation fuels, including gasoline, in the United States each year. Additionally, the EPA imposes oxygenate blending requirements for reformulated gasoline that are best met with ethanol blending. Gasoline marketers may also choose to discretionally blend ethanol into conventional gasoline for economic reasons. A change or waiver of the RFS mandate or the reformulated gasoline oxygenate blending requirements could adversely affect the availability and pricing of ethanol. Any change in the RFS mandate could also result in reduced discretionary blending of ethanol into conventional gasoline. Discretionary blending is when gasoline blenders use ethanol to reduce the cost of blended gasoline.
18
Environmental Insurance
We maintain insurance which may cover, in whole or in part, certain costs relating to environmental matters associated with the releases of the products we store, sell and/or ship. We maintain insurance policies with insurers in amounts and with coverage and deductibles as we believe are reasonable and prudent. These policies may not cover all environmental risks and costs and may not provide sufficient coverage in the event an environmental claim is made against us.
Security Regulation
Since the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, the U.S. government has issued warnings that energy infrastructure assets may be future targets of terrorist organizations. These developments have subjected our operations to increased risks. Increased security measures taken by us as a precaution against possible terrorist attacks have resulted in increased costs to our business. Where required by federal or local laws, we have prepared security plans for the storage and distribution facilities we operate. Terrorist attacks aimed at our facilities and any global and domestic economic repercussions from terrorist activities could adversely affect our financial condition, results of operations and cash available for distribution to our unitholders. For instance, terrorist activity could lead to increased volatility in prices for home heating oil, gasoline and other products we sell.
Insurance carriers are currently required to offer coverage for terrorist activities as a result of the federal Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 2002 (“TRIA”). We purchased this coverage with respect to our property and casualty insurance programs, which resulted in additional insurance premiums. Pursuant to the Terrorism Risk Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2015, TRIA has been extended through December 31, 2020. Although we cannot determine the future availability and cost of insurance coverage for terrorist acts, we do not expect the availability and cost of such insurance to have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations or cash available for distribution to our unitholders.
Hazardous Materials Transportation
Our operations include the preparation and shipment of some hazardous materials by truck, rail and marine vessel. We are subject to regulations promulgated under the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act (and subsequent amendments) and administered by the U.S. Department of Transportation (“DOT”) under the Federal Highway Administration, the Federal Railroad Administration (“FRA”), the United States Coast Guard and the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (“PHMSA”).
We conduct loading and unloading of refined petroleum products, renewable fuels, crude oil and propane to and from cargo transports, including tanker trucks, railcars and marine vessels. In large part, the cargo transports are owned and operated by third parties. However, we lease a fleet of railcars and charter barges associated with the shipment of refined petroleum products, renewable fuels and crude oil. We conduct ongoing training programs to help ensure that our operations are in compliance with applicable regulations.
The trend in hazardous material transportation is to increase oversight and regulation of these operations. Several derailments of freight trains, including the tragic events in July 2013 in Lac Mégantic and other events, have led federal and state regulators to examine whether the hazardous nature of crude oil from the Bakken Shale is being assessed properly prior to its shipment. In particular, there are concerns that the testing and ensuing designations of the crude oil on the shipping documentation do not in all cases accurately capture the flammability of the Bakken crude oil. These events have spurred efforts to improve the safety of tank cars that are used in transporting crude oil and other flammable or petroleum type liquids by rail. Since 2011, PHMSA has introduced a number of new requirements for railroad tank cars, including requirements that all new railroad tank cars used to transport crude oil or other petroleum type fluids (e.g., ethanol) be built to more stringent safety standards. PHMSA has also additional requirements to enhance tank car standards, a classification and testing program for crude oil, and a requirement that certain older DOT‑111 tank cars be phased out.
19
The rules also include braking standards for certain trains, designates new operational protocols for trains transporting large volumes of flammable liquids, such as routing requirements, speed restrictions and information for local government agencies, and provides new sampling and testing requirements to improve classification of energy products placed into transport. In July 2016, PHMSA also proposed a new rule that would expand the applicability of comprehensive oil spill response plans so that any railroad that transports a single train carrying 20 or more loaded tank cars of liquid petroleum oil in a continuous block or a single train carrying 35 or more loaded tank cars of liquid petroleum oil throughout the train must have a current, comprehensive, written plan. In addition to action taken or proposed by federal agencies, a number of states proposed or enacted laws in recent years that encourage safer rail operations or urge the federal government to strengthen requirements for these operations.
Efforts are likewise underway in Canada to assess and address risks from the transport of crude oil by rail. For example, in April 2014, Transport Canada issued a protective order prohibiting oil shippers from using 5,000 of the DOT‑111 tank cars and imposing a three‑year phase‑out period for approximately 65,000 tank cars that do not meet certain safety requirements. Transport Canada also imposed a 50 mile‑per‑hour speed limit on trains carrying hazardous materials and required all crude oil shipments in Canada to have an emergency response plan. At the same time that PHMSA released its 2015 rule, Canada’s Minister of Transport announced Canada’s new tank car standards, which largely align with the requirements in the PHMSA rule. Likewise, Transport Canada’s railcar retrofitting and phase out timeline largely aligns with the timeline introduced under the 2015 and 2016 PHMSA rules. Transport Canada has also introduced new requirements that railways carry minimum levels of insurance depending on the quantity of crude oil or dangerous goods that they transport as well as a final report recommending additional practices for the transportation of dangerous goods.
We believe we are in substantial compliance with applicable hazardous materials transportation requirements related to our operations. We do not believe that compliance with federal, state or local hazardous materials transportation regulations will have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations or cash available for distribution to our unitholders. However, these and future statutes, regulatory changes or initiatives regarding hazardous material transportation, could directly and indirectly increase our operation, compliance and transportation costs and lead to shortages in availability of tank cars. We cannot assure that costs incurred to comply with standards and regulations emerging from these and future rulemakings will not be material to our business, financial condition or results of operations. Furthermore, we can provide no assurance that future events, such as changes in existing laws (including changes in the interpretation of existing laws), the promulgation of new laws and regulations, including any voluntary measures by the rail industry, that result in new requirements for the design, construction or operation of tank cars used to transport crude oil, or, or the development or discovery of new facts or conditions will not cause us to incur significant costs. Any such requirements would apply to the industry as a whole.
Employee Safety
We are subject to the requirements of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (“OSHA”) and comparable state statutes that regulate the protection of the health and safety of workers. In addition, OSHA’s hazard communication standards require that information be maintained about hazardous materials used or produced in operations and that this information be provided to employees, state and local government authorities and citizens. We believe that we are in substantial compliance with the applicable OSHA requirements.
20
Risks Related to Our Business
We may not have sufficient cash from operations to enable us to maintain distributions at current levels following establishment of cash reserves and payment of fees and expenses, including payments to our general partner.
We may not have sufficient available cash each quarter to maintain distributions at current levels. The amount of cash we can distribute on our units principally depends upon the amount of cash we generate from our operations, which will fluctuate from quarter to quarter based on, among other things:
· |
competition from other companies that sell refined petroleum products, renewable fuels, crude oil, natural gas and propane; |
· |
demand for refined petroleum products, renewable fuels, crude oil, natural gas and propane in the markets we serve; |
· |
absolute price levels, as well as the volatility of prices, of refined petroleum products, renewable fuels, RINs, crude oil, natural gas and propane in both the spot and futures markets; |
· |
supply, extreme weather and logistics disruptions; |
· |
seasonal variation in temperatures, which affects demand for home heating oil and residual oil to the extent that it is used for space heating; |
· |
the level of our operating costs, including payments to our general partner; and |
· |
prevailing economic conditions. |
In addition, the actual amount of cash we have available for distribution will depend on other factors such as:
· |
the level of capital expenditures we make; |
· |
the restrictions contained in our credit agreement and the indentures governing our senior notes, including financial covenants, borrowing base limitations and advance rates; |
· |
our debt service requirements; |
· |
the cost of acquisitions; |
· |
fluctuations in our working capital needs; |
· |
our ability to borrow under our credit agreement to make distributions to our unitholders; and |
· |
the amount of cash reserves established by our general partner. |
With respect to each of the quarters in 2016, we announced a quarterly distribution of $0.4625 per unit. On January 28, 2016, we announced a reduction in the quarterly distribution for the fourth quarter of 2015 on all outstanding common units to $0.4625. This distribution represented a decrease of 33.7% from the distribution of $0.6975 per unit paid in November 2015 and a decrease of 30.5% from the distribution of $0.6650 per unit paid in February 2015. That reduction in the distribution primarily reflected the continuing weakness in the crude oil market. The significant decline in the price of crude oil and tight crude oil differentials negatively impacted our fiscal 2015 and 2016 results.
21
The amount of cash we have available for distribution to unitholders depends on our cash flow and not solely on profitability.
The amount of cash we have available for distribution depends primarily on our cash flow, including borrowings, and not solely on profitability, which will be affected by non‑cash items. As a result, we may make cash distributions during periods when we record losses and may not make cash distributions during periods when we record net income.
We may not be able to fully implement or capitalize upon planned growth projects.
We could have a number of organic growth projects that may require the expenditure of significant amounts of capital in the aggregate. Many of these projects involve numerous regulatory, environmental, commercial and legal uncertainties beyond our control. As these projects are undertaken, required approvals, permits and licenses may not be obtained, may be delayed or may be obtained with conditions that materially alter the expected return associated with the underlying projects. Moreover, revenues associated with these organic growth projects would not increase immediately upon the expenditures of funds with respect to a particular project and these projects may be completed behind schedule or in excess of budgeted cost. We may pursue and complete projects in anticipation of market demand that dissipates or market growth that never materializes. As a result of these uncertainties, the anticipated benefits associated with our capital projects may not be achieved.
We commit substantial resources to pursuing acquisitions and expending capital for growth projects, although there is no certainty that we will successfully complete any acquisitions or growth projects or receive the economic results we anticipate from completed acquisitions or growth projects.
We are continuously engaged in discussions with potential sellers and lessors of existing (or suitable for development) terminalling, storage, logistics and/or marketing assets, including gasoline stations, and related businesses. Our growth largely depends on our ability to make accretive acquisitions and/or accretive development projects. We may be unable to execute such accretive transactions for a number of reasons, including the following: (1) we are unable to identify attractive transaction candidates or negotiate acceptable terms; (2) we are unable to obtain financing for such transactions on economically acceptable terms; or (3) we are outbid by competitors. In addition, we may consummate transactions that at the time of consummation we believe will be accretive but that ultimately may not be accretive. If any of these events were to occur, our future growth and ability to increase or maintain distributions could be limited. We can give no assurance that our transaction efforts will be successful or that any such efforts will be completed on terms that are favorable to us.
Even if we consummate acquisitions that we believe will be accretive, they may in fact result in no increase or even a decrease in cash available for distribution to our unitholders. Any acquisition involves potential risks, including:
· |
performance from the acquired assets and businesses that is below the forecasts we used in evaluating the acquisition; |
· |
mistaken assumptions about price, demand, volumes, revenues and costs, including synergies; |
· |
a significant increase in our indebtedness and working capital requirements; |
· |
an inability to hire, train or retain qualified personnel to manage and operate our business and newly acquired assets; |
· |
the inability to timely and effectively integrate the operations of recently acquired businesses or assets, particularly those in new geographic areas or in new lines of business; |
· |
mistaken assumptions about the overall costs of equity or debt; |
22
· |
the assumption of substantial unknown or unforeseen environmental and other liabilities arising out of the acquired businesses or assets, including liabilities arising from the operation of the acquired businesses or assets prior to our acquisition, for which we are not indemnified or for which the indemnity is inadequate; |
· |
limitations on rights to indemnity from the seller; |
· |
customer or key employee loss from the acquired businesses; |
· |
unforeseen difficulties operating in new and existing product areas or new and existing geographic areas; and |
· |
diversion of our management’s and employees’ attention from other business concerns. |
If any acquisitions we ultimately consummate do not generate expected increases in cash available for distribution to our unitholders, our ability to increase or maintain distributions may be reduced.
Our gasoline financial results are seasonal and can be lower in the first and fourth quarters of the calendar year.
Due to the nature of our business and our reliance, in part, on consumer travel and spending patterns, we may experience more demand for gasoline during the late spring and summer months than during the fall and winter. Travel and recreational activities are typically higher in these months in the geographic areas in which we operate, increasing the demand for gasoline. Therefore, our results of operations in gasoline can be lower in the first and fourth quarters of the calendar year.
Our heating oil and residual oil financial results are seasonal and can be lower in the second and third quarters of the calendar year.
Demand for some refined petroleum products, specifically home heating oil and residual oil for space heating purposes, is generally higher during November through March than during April through October. We obtain a significant portion of these sales during the winter months. Therefore, our results of operations in heating oil and residual oil for the first and fourth calendar quarters can be better than for the second and third quarters.
Warmer weather conditions could adversely affect our results of operations and financial condition.
Weather conditions generally have an impact on the demand for both home heating oil and residual oil. Because we supply distributors whose customers depend on home heating oil and residual oil for space heating purposes during the winter, warmer‑than‑normal temperatures during the first and fourth calendar quarters in the Northeast can decrease the total volume we sell and the gross profit realized on those sales.
A significant decrease in price or demand for the products we sell or a significant decrease in demand for our logistics activities could reduce our ability to make distributions to our unitholders.
A significant decrease in price or demand for the products we sell or a significant decrease in demand for our logistics activities could reduce our revenues and, therefore, reduce our ability to make or increase distributions to our unitholders. Factors that could lead to a decrease in market demand for refined petroleum products, renewable fuels, crude oil, natural gas and propane include:
· |
a recession or other adverse economic conditions or an increase in the market price or of an oversupply of refined petroleum products, renewable fuels, crude oil, natural gas and propane or higher fuel taxes or other governmental or regulatory actions that increase, directly or indirectly, the cost of gasoline or other refined petroleum products, renewable fuels crude oil, natural gas and propane; |
23
· |
a shift by consumers to more fuel‑efficient or alternative fuel vehicles or an increase in fuel economy of vehicles, whether as a result of technological advances by manufacturers, governmental or regulatory actions or otherwise; and |
· |
conversion from consumption of home heating oil or residual oil to natural gas. |
Certain of our operating costs and expenses are fixed and do not vary with the volumes we store and distribute. Should we experience a reduction in our volumes stored, distributed and sold and in our related logistics activities, such costs and expenses may not decrease ratably or at all. As a result, we may experience declines in our margin if our volumes decrease.
Our business is influenced by the overall markets for refined petroleum products, renewable fuels, crude oil and propane and increases and/or decreases in the prices of these products may adversely impact our financial condition, results of operations and cash available for distribution to our unitholders and the amount of borrowing available for working capital under our credit agreement.
Results from our purchasing, storing, terminalling, transporting and selling operations are influenced by prices for refined petroleum products, renewable fuels, crude oil and propane, price volatility and the market for such products. Prices in the overall markets for these products may affect our financial condition, results of operations and cash available for distribution to our unitholders. Our margins can be significantly impacted by the forward product pricing curve, often referred to as the futures market. We typically hedge our exposure to petroleum product and renewable fuel price moves with futures contracts and, to a lesser extent, swaps. In markets where future prices are higher than current prices, referred to as contango, we may use our storage capacity to improve our margins by storing products we have purchased at lower prices in the current market for delivery to customers at higher prices in the future. In markets where future prices are lower than current prices, referred to as backwardation, inventories can depreciate in value and hedging costs are more expensive. For this reason, in these backward markets, we attempt to reduce our inventories in order to minimize these effects.
When prices for the products we sell rise, some of our customers may have insufficient credit to purchase supply from us at their historical purchase volumes, and their customers, in turn, may adopt conservation measures which reduce consumption, thereby reducing demand for product. Furthermore, when prices increase rapidly and dramatically, we may be unable to promptly pass our additional costs on to our customers, resulting in lower margins which could adversely affect our results of operations. Higher prices for the products we sell may (1) diminish our access to trade credit support and/or cause it to become more expensive and (2) decrease the amount of borrowings available for working capital under our credit agreement as a result of total available commitments, borrowing base limitations and advance rates thereunder.
When prices for the products we sell decline, our exposure to risk of loss in the event of nonperformance by our customers of our forward contracts may be increased as they and/or their customers may breach their contracts and purchase the products we sell at the then lower market price from a competitor. A significant decrease in the price for crude oil has adversely affected the economics of domestic crude oil production which, in turn, has had an adverse effect on our crude oil logistics activities and sales. A significant decrease in crude oil differentials has also had an adverse effect on our crude oil logistics activities and sales. In addition, the prolonged decline in crude oil prices and crude oil differentials has indicated an impairment of our long-lived assets used at our terminals in North Dakota. As a result of these events, we recognized a goodwill and long-lived asset impairment of $149.9 million for year ended December 31, 2016.
We have contractual obligations for certain transportation assets such as railcars, barges and pipelines.
A decline in demand for (i) the products we sell, including crude oil and ethanol, or (ii) our logistics activities has resulted and could continue to result in a decrease in the utilization of our transportation assets, which could negatively impact our financial condition, results of operations and cash available for distribution to our unitholders. For example, during 2015 and 2016, we experienced adverse market conditions in crude oil caused by an over-supplied
24
crude oil market which resulted in tighter price differentials, and we experienced a reduction in our railcar movements but remained obligated to pay the applicable fixed charges for railcar leases.
The condition of credit markets may adversely affect our liquidity.
In the past, world financial markets experienced a severe reduction in the availability of credit. Possible negative impacts in the future could include a decrease in the availability of borrowings under our credit agreement, increased counterparty credit risk on our derivatives contracts and our contractual counterparties requiring us to provide collateral. In addition, we could experience a tightening of trade credit from our suppliers.
Our debt levels may limit our flexibility in obtaining additional financing and in pursuing other business opportunities.
As of December 31, 2016, our total debt, including amounts outstanding under our credit agreement and senior notes, was approximately $1.3 billion. We have the ability to incur additional debt, including the capacity to borrow up to $1.475 billion under our credit agreement, subject to limitations in our credit agreement. Our level of indebtedness could have important consequences to us, including the following:
· |
our ability to obtain additional financing, if necessary, for working capital, capital expenditures, acquisitions or other purposes may be impaired or such financing may not be available on favorable terms; |
· |
covenants contained in our existing and future credit and debt arrangements will require us to meet financial tests that may affect our flexibility in planning for and reacting to changes in our business, including possible acquisition opportunities; |
· |
we will need a substantial portion of our cash flow to make principal and interest payments on our indebtedness, reducing the funds that would otherwise be available for operations, future business opportunities and distributions to unitholders; |
· |
our debt level will make us more vulnerable than our competitors with less debt to competitive pressures or a downturn in our business or the economy generally; and |
· |
our debt level may limit our flexibility in responding to changing business and economic conditions. |
Our ability to service our indebtedness depends upon, among other things, our financial and operating performance, which will be affected by prevailing economic conditions and financial, business, regulatory and other factors, some of which are beyond our control. If our operating results are not sufficient to service our current or future indebtedness, we will be forced to take actions, such as reducing or eliminating distributions, reducing or delaying our business activities, acquisitions, investments and/or capital expenditures, selling assets, restructuring or refinancing our indebtedness, or seeking additional equity capital or bankruptcy protection. We may not be able to effect any of these remedies on satisfactory terms or at all.
A significant increase in interest rates could adversely affect our ability to service our indebtedness.
The interest rates on our credit agreement are variable; therefore, we have exposure to movements in interest rates. A significant increase in interest rates could adversely affect our ability to service our indebtedness. The increased cost could make the financing of our business activities more expensive. These added expenses could have an adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations and cash available for distribution to our unitholders.
25
We may not be able to obtain funding on acceptable terms or obtain additional requested funding in excess of total commitments under our credit agreement, which could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations and cash available for distribution to our unitholders.
In the past, global financial markets and economic conditions were disrupted and volatile. The debt and equity capital markets were exceedingly distressed. These issues, along with significant write‑offs in the financial services sector, the re‑pricing of credit risk and the economic conditions, had made and, along with any other potential future economic or market uncertainties, could make it difficult to obtain funding.
As a result, the cost of raising money in the debt and equity capital markets could increase while the availability of funds from those markets could diminish. The cost of obtaining money from the credit markets could increase as many lenders and institutional investors increase interest rates, enact tighter lending standards and reduce and, in some cases, cease to provide funding to borrowers.
In addition, we may be unable to obtain adequate funding under our credit agreement because (i) one or more of our lenders may be unable to meet its funding obligations or (ii) our borrowing base under our credit agreement, as redetermined from time to time, may decrease as a result of price fluctuations, counterparty risk, advance rates and borrowing base limitations and customer nonpayment or nonperformance.
Due to these factors, we cannot be certain that funding will be available if needed and to the extent required or requested on acceptable terms. If funding is not available when needed, or is available only on unfavorable terms, we may be unable to maintain our business as currently conducted, enhance our existing business, complete acquisitions or otherwise take advantage of business opportunities or respond to competitive pressures, any of which could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations and cash available for distribution to our unitholders.
Operating and financial restrictions and covenants in our credit agreement and the indentures governing our senior notes and borrowing base requirements in our credit agreement may restrict our business and financing activities.
The operating and financial restrictions and covenants in our credit agreement and the indentures governing our senior notes and any future financing agreements could restrict our ability to finance future operations or capital needs or to engage, expand or pursue our business activities. For example, our credit agreement restricts our ability to:
· |
grant liens; |
· |
make certain loans or investments; |
· |
incur additional indebtedness or guarantee other indebtedness; |
· |
make any material change to the nature of our business or undergo a fundamental change; |
· |
make any material dispositions; |
· |
acquire another company; |
· |
enter into a merger, consolidation, sale leaseback transaction or purchase of assets; |
· |
make distributions if any potential default or event of default occurs; or |
· |
modify borrowing base components and advance rates. |
In addition, the indentures governing our senior notes limit our ability to, among other things:
26
· |
incur additional indebtedness; |
· |
make distributions to equity owners; |
· |
make certain investments; |
· |
restrict distributions by our subsidiaries; |
· |
create liens; |
· |
enter into sale‑leaseback transactions; |
· |
sell assets; or |
· |
merge with other entities. |
Our ability to comply with the covenants and restrictions contained in our credit agreement and the indentures may be affected by events beyond our control, including prevailing economic, financial and industry conditions. If market or other economic conditions deteriorate, our ability to comply with these covenants may be impaired. If we violate any of the restrictions, covenants, ratios or tests in our credit agreement or the indentures, a significant portion of our indebtedness may become immediately due and payable, and our lenders’ commitment to make further loans to us may terminate. We might not have, or be able to obtain, sufficient funds to make these accelerated payments. In addition, our obligations under our credit agreement are secured by substantially all of our assets, and if we are unable to repay our indebtedness under our credit agreement, the lenders could seek to foreclose on such assets.
Restrictions in our credit agreement and the indentures limit our ability to pay distributions upon the occurrence of certain events.
Our credit agreement and the indentures limit our ability to pay distributions upon the occurrence of certain events. For example, each of our credit agreement and the indentures limits our ability to pay distributions upon the occurrence of the following events, among others:
· |
failure to pay any principal, interest, fees or other amounts when due; |
· |
failure to perform or otherwise comply with the covenants in the credit agreement, the indentures or in other loan documents to which we are a borrower; and |
· |
a bankruptcy or insolvency event involving us, our general partner or any of our subsidiaries. |
Any subsequent refinancing of our current debt or any new debt could have similar restrictions. For more information regarding our credit agreement and the indentures, please read Item 7, “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations—Liquidity and Capital Resources—Credit Agreement” and Note 6 of Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.
We can borrow money under our credit agreement to pay distributions, which would reduce the amount of credit available to operate our business.
Our partnership agreement allows us to borrow under our credit agreement to pay distributions. Accordingly, we can make distributions on our units even though cash generated by our operations may not be sufficient to pay such distributions. For more information, please read Item 7, “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations—Liquidity and Capital Resources” and Note 6 of Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.
27
The enactment of derivatives legislation could have an adverse effect on our ability to use derivative instruments to reduce the effect of commodity price, interest rate and other risks associated with our business.
On July 21, 2010, new comprehensive financial reform legislation, known as the Dodd‑Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the “Act”), was enacted that establishes federal oversight and regulation of the over‑the‑counter derivatives market and entities, such as us, that participate in that market. The Act requires the Commodities Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”), the SEC and other regulators to promulgate rules and regulations implementing the new legislation. Although the CFTC has finalized certain regulations, others remain to be finalized or implemented and it is not possible at this time to predict when this will be accomplished.
In October 2010, pursuant to its rulemaking under the Act, the CFTC issued rules to set position limits for certain futures and option contracts in the major energy markets and for swaps that are their economic equivalents. The initial position limits rule was vacated by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in September of 2012. However, in November 2013, the CFTC proposed new rules that would place limits on positions in certain core futures and equivalent swaps contracts for, or linked to, certain physical commodities, subject to exceptions for certain bona fide hedging transactions. As these new position limit rules are not yet final, the impact of those provisions on us is uncertain at this time.
The CFTC has designated certain interest rate swaps and credit default swaps for mandatory clearing and exchange trading. To the extent we engage in such transactions or transactions that become subject to such rules in the future, we will be required to comply or take steps to qualify for an exemption to such requirements. Although we expect to qualify for the end‑user exception to the mandatory clearing requirements for swaps entered to hedge our commercial risks, the application of the mandatory clearing and trade execution requirements to other market participants, such as swap dealers, may change the cost and availability of the swaps that we use for hedging. If our swaps do not qualify for the commercial end‑user exception, or the cost of entering into uncleared swaps becomes prohibitive, we may be required to clear such transactions. The ultimate effect of the rules and any additional regulations on our business is uncertain at this time.
In addition, the Act requires that regulators establish margin rules for uncleared swaps. Banking regulators and the CFTC have adopted final rules establishing minimum margin requirements for uncleared swaps. Although we expect to qualify for the end‑user exception from such margin requirements for swaps entered into to hedge our commercial risks, the application of such requirements to other market participants, such as swap dealers, may change the cost and availability of the swaps that we use for hedging. If any of our swaps do not qualify for the commercial end‑user exception, posting of initial or variation margin could impact our liquidity and reduce cash available for capital expenditures, therefore reducing our ability to execute hedges to reduce risk and protect cash flows.
The full impact of the Act and related regulatory requirements upon our business will not be known until the regulations are implemented and the market for derivative contracts has adjusted. The Act and any new regulations could significantly increase the cost of derivative contracts (including from swap recordkeeping and reporting requirements and through requirements to post collateral which could adversely affect our available liquidity), materially alter the terms of derivative contracts, reduce the availability of some derivatives to protect against risks we encounter and reduce our ability to monetize or restructure our existing derivative contracts. If we reduce our use of derivatives as a result of the Act and regulations, our results of operations may become more volatile and our cash flows may be less predictable, which could adversely affect our ability to plan for and fund capital expenditures. Any of these consequences could have material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations and cash available for distributions to our unitholders.
In addition, the European Union and other non‑U.S. jurisdictions are implementing regulations with respect to the derivatives market. To the extent we transact with counterparties in foreign jurisdictions, we may become subject to such regulations. At this time, the impact of such regulations is not clear.
28
Our risk management policies cannot eliminate all commodity risk, basis risk or the impact of unfavorable market conditions which can adversely affect our financial condition, results of operations and cash available for distribution to our unitholders. In addition, any noncompliance with our risk management policies could result in significant financial losses.
While our hedging policies are designed to minimize commodity risk, some degree of exposure to unforeseen fluctuations in market conditions remains. For example, we change our hedged position daily in response to movements in our inventory. If we overestimate or underestimate our sales from inventory, we may be unhedged for the amount of the overestimate or underestimate. Also, significant increases in the costs of the products we sell can materially increase our costs to carry inventory. We use our credit facility as our primary source of financing to carry inventory and may be limited on the amounts we can borrow to carry inventory.
Basis risk is the inherent market price risk created when a commodity of certain grade or location is purchased, sold or exchanged as compared to a purchase, sale or exchange of a like commodity at a different time or place. Transportation costs and timing differentials are components of basis risk. For example, we use the NYMEX to hedge our commodity risk with respect to pricing of energy products traded on the NYMEX. Physical deliveries under NYMEX contracts are made in New York Harbor. To the extent we take deliveries in other ports, such as Boston Harbor, we may have basis risk. In a backward market (when prices for future deliveries are lower than current prices), basis risk is created with respect to timing. In these instances, physical inventory generally loses value as basis declines over time. Basis risk cannot be entirely eliminated, and basis exposure, particularly in backward or other adverse market conditions, can adversely affect our financial condition, results of operations and cash available for distribution to our unitholders.
We monitor processes and procedures to prevent unauthorized trading and to maintain substantial balance between purchases and sales or future delivery obligations. We can provide no assurance, however, that these steps will detect and/or prevent all violations of such risk management policies and procedures, particularly if deception or other intentional misconduct is involved.
We are exposed to trade credit risk and risk associated with our trade credit support in the ordinary course of our business activities.
We are exposed to risks of loss in the event of nonperformance by our customers, by counterparties of our forward and futures contracts, options and swap agreements and by our suppliers. Some of our customers, counterparties and suppliers may be highly leveraged and subject to their own operating and regulatory risks. The tightening of credit in the financial markets may make it more difficult for customers and counterparties to obtain financing and, depending on the degree to which it occurs, there may be a material increase in the nonpayment and nonperformance of our customers and counterparties. Even if our credit review and analysis mechanisms work properly, we may experience financial losses in our dealings with other parties. Any increase in the nonpayment or nonperformance by our customers and/or counterparties and the nonperformance by our suppliers could reduce our ability to make distributions to our unitholders.
Additionally, our access to trade credit support could diminish and/or become more expensive. Our ability to continue to receive sufficient trade credit on commercially acceptable terms could be adversely affected by fluctuations in petroleum product and renewable fuel prices or disruptions in the credit markets or for any other reason. Any of these events could adversely affect our financial condition, results of operations and cash available for distribution to our unitholders.
We are exposed to performance risk in our supply chain.
We rely upon our suppliers to timely produce the volumes and types of refined petroleum products, renewable fuels, crude oil, natural gas and propane for which they contract with us. In the event one or more of our suppliers does not perform in accordance with its contractual obligations, we may be required to purchase product on the open market to satisfy forward contracts we have entered into with our customers in reliance upon such supply arrangements. We may purchase refined petroleum products, renewable fuels, crude oil, natural gas and propane from a variety of suppliers under term contracts and on the spot market. In times of extreme market demand, we may be unable to satisfy our supply
29
requirements. Furthermore, a portion of our supply comes from other countries, which could be disrupted by political events. In the event such supply becomes scarce, whether as a result of political events, natural disaster, logistical issues associated with delivery schedules or otherwise, we may not be able to satisfy our supply requirements. If any of these events were to occur, we may be required to pay more for product that we purchase on the open market, which could result in financial losses and adversely affect our financial condition, results of operations and cash available for distribution to our unitholders.
Historical prices for certain products we sell have been volatile and significant changes in such prices in the future may adversely affect our financial condition, results of operations and cash available for distribution to our unitholders.
Historical prices for certain products we sell have been volatile. General political conditions, acts of war, terrorism and instability in oil producing regions, particularly in the United States, Canada, Middle East, Russia, Africa and South America, could significantly impact crude oil supplies and crude oil and refined petroleum product costs. Significant increases and volatility in wholesale gasoline costs could result in significant increases in the retail price of motor fuel products and in lower margins per gallon. Increases in the retail price of motor fuel products could impact consumer demand for motor fuel. This volatility makes it extremely difficult to predict the impact future wholesale cost fluctuations will have on our operating results and financial condition. Dramatic increases in crude oil prices squeeze fuel margins because fuel costs typically increase faster than can pass along such increases to customers. Higher fuel prices trigger higher credit card expenses, because credit card fees are calculated as a percentage of the transaction amount, not as a percentage of gallons sold. A significant change in any of these factors could materially impact our customers’ needs, motor fuel gallon volumes, gross profit and overall customer traffic, which in turn could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations and cash available for distribution to our unitholders.
Our gasoline sales could be significantly reduced by a reduction in demand due to higher prices and to new technologies and alternative fuel sources, such as electric, hybrid or battery powered motor vehicles.
Technological advances and alternative fuel sources, such as electric, hybrid or battery powered motor vehicles, may adversely affect the demand for gasoline. We could face additional competition from alternative energy sources as a result of future government‑mandated controls or regulations which promote the use of alternative fuel sources. A number of new legal incentives and regulatory requirements, and executive initiatives, including the Clean Power Plan and various government subsidies including the extension of certain tax credits for renewable energy, have made these alternative forms of energy more competitive. A reduction in demand for our gasoline products could have an adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations and cash available for distributions to our unitholders. In addition, higher prices could reduce the demand for gasoline and adversely impact our gasoline sales. A reduction in gasoline sales could have an adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations and cash available for distribution to our unitholders.
Energy efficiency, higher prices, new technology and alternative fuels could reduce demand for our products.
Increased conservation and technological advances have adversely affected the demand for home heating oil and residual oil. Consumption of residual oil has steadily declined over the last several decades. We face additional competition from alternative energy sources as a result of future government‑mandated controls or regulation further promoting the use of cleaner fuels. End users who are dual‑fuel users have the ability to switch between residual oil and natural gas. Other end users may elect to convert to natural gas. During a period of increasing residual oil prices relative to the prices of natural gas, dual‑fuel customers may switch and other end users may convert to natural gas. During periods of increasing home heating oil prices relative to the price of natural gas, residential users of home heating oil may also convert to natural gas. Such switching or conversion could have an adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations and cash available for distribution to our unitholders. In addition, higher prices and new technologies and alternative fuel sources, such as electric, hybrid or battery powered motor vehicles, could reduce the demand for gasoline and adversely impact our gasoline sales. A reduction in gasoline sales could have an adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations and cash available for distribution to our unitholders.
30
Erosion of the value of major gasoline brands could adversely affect our gasoline sales and customer traffic.
As a significant number of our retail gasoline stations and convenience stores are branded Mobil or other major gasoline brands, they may be dependent, in part, upon the continuing favorable reputation of such brands. Erosion of the value of major gasoline brands could have a negative impact on our gasoline sales, which in turn may cause our acquisition to be less profitable.
We depend upon marine, pipeline, rail and truck transportation services for a substantial portion of our logistics business in transporting the products we sell. A disruption in these transportation services could have an adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations and cash available for distribution to our unitholders.
Hurricanes, flooding and other severe weather conditions could cause a disruption in the transportation services we depend upon which could affect the flow of service. In addition, accidents, labor disputes between providers and their employees and labor renegotiations, including strikes, lockouts or a work stoppage, shortage of railcars, mechanical difficulties or bottlenecks and disruptions in transportation logistics could also disrupt our businesses. These events could result in service disruptions and increased cost which could also adversely affect our financial condition, results of operations and cash available for distribution to our unitholders. Other disruptions, such as those due to an act of terrorism or war, could also adversely affect our business.
Changes in government usage mandates and tax credits could adversely affect the availability and pricing of ethanol, which could negatively impact our sales.
The EPA has implemented a RFS pursuant to the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. The RFS program sets annual quotas for the quantity of renewable fuels (such as ethanol) that must be blended into transportation fuels consumed in the United States. A RIN is assigned to each gallon of renewable fuel produced in or imported into the United States.
We are exposed to the volatility in the market price of RINs. We cannot predict the future prices of RINs. RIN prices are dependent upon a variety of factors, including EPA regulations, the availability of RINs for purchase, the price at which RINs can be purchased, and levels of transportation fuels produced, all of which can vary significantly from quarter to quarter. If sufficient RINs are unavailable for purchase or if we have to pay a significantly higher price for RINs, or if we are otherwise unable to meet the EPA’s RFS mandates, our results of operations and cash flows could be adversely affected.
Future demand for ethanol will be largely dependent upon the economic incentives to blend based upon the relative value of gasoline and ethanol, taking into consideration the EPA’s regulations on the RFS program and oxygenate blending requirements. A reduction or waiver of the RFS mandate or oxygenate blending requirements could adversely affect the availability and pricing of ethanol, which in turn could adversely affect our future gasoline and ethanol sales. In addition, changes in blending requirements could affect the price of RINs which could impact the magnitude of the mark‑to‑market liability recorded for the deficiency, if any, in our RIN position relative to our RVO at a point in time.
We may not be able to obtain state fund or insurance reimbursement of our environmental remediation costs.
Where releases of refined petroleum products, renewable fuels, crude oil, natural gas and propane have occurred, federal and state laws and regulations require that contamination caused by such releases be assessed and remediated to meet applicable standards. Our obligation to remediate this type of contamination varies, depending upon applicable laws and regulations and the extent of, and the facts relating to, the release. A portion of the remediation costs for certain petroleum products may be recoverable from the reimbursement fund of the applicable state and/or from third party insurance after any deductible has been met, but there are no assurances that such reimbursement funds or insurance proceeds will be available to us.
31
Future consumer or other litigation could adversely affect our financial condition and results of operations.
Our retail gasoline and convenience store operations are characterized by a high volume of customer traffic and by transactions involving an array of products.
These operations carry a higher exposure to consumer litigation risk when compared to the operations of companies operating in many other industries. Consequently, we may become a party to individual personal injury or products liability and other legal actions in the ordinary course of our retail gasoline and convenience store business. Any such action could adversely affect our financial condition and results of operations. Additionally, we are occasionally exposed to industry‑wide or class action claims arising from the products we carry or industry‑specific business practices. Our defense costs and any resulting damage awards or settlement amounts may not be fully covered by our insurance policies. An unfavorable outcome or settlement of one or more of these lawsuits could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations and cash available for distributions.
We may incur costs or liabilities as a result of litigation or adverse publicity resulting from concerns over food quality, health or other issues that could cause customers to avoid our convenience stores.
We may be the subject of complaints or litigation arising from food-related illness or injury in general which could have a negative impact on our business. Additionally, negative publicity, regardless of whether the allegations are valid, concerning food quality, food safety or other health concerns, employee relations or other matters related to our prepared food operations may materially adversely affect demand for our offerings and could result in a decrease in customer traffic to our convenience stores.
We depend upon a small number of suppliers for a substantial portion of our convenience store merchandise inventory. A disruption in supply or an unexpected change in our relationships with our principal merchandise suppliers could have an adverse effect on our convenience store results of operations.
We purchase convenience store merchandise inventory from a small number of suppliers for our directly operated convenience stores. A change of merchandise suppliers, a disruption in supply or a significant change in our relationships with our principal merchandise suppliers could have an adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations and cash available for distribution to our unitholders.
Governmental action and campaigns to discourage smoking may have a material adverse effect on our revenues and gross profit.
Congress has given the FDA broad authority to regulate tobacco products, and the FDA has enacted numerous regulations restricting the sale of such products. These governmental actions, as well as national, state and local campaigns to discourage smoking and other factors, may result in reduced volume and consumption levels, and could materially affect the retail price of cigarettes, unit volume and revenues, gross profit and overall customer traffic, which in turn could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.
We face intense competition in our purchasing, terminalling, transporting, storage and logistics activities. Competition from other providers of refined petroleum products, renewable fuels, crude oil, natural gas and propane that are able to supply our customers with those products and services at a lower price and have capital resources many times greater than ours could reduce our ability to make distributions to our unitholders.
We are subject to competition from distributors and suppliers of refined petroleum products, renewable fuels, crude oil, natural gas and propane that may be able to supply our customers with the same or comparable products and terminalling, transporting and storage services and logistics on a more competitive basis. We compete with terminal companies, major integrated oil companies and their marketing affiliates, wholesalers, producers and independent marketers of varying sizes, financial resources and experience. In our Northeast market, we compete in various product lines and for all customers. In the residual oil markets, however, where product is heated when stored and cannot be delivered long distances, we face less competition because of the strategic locations of our residual oil storage facilities.
32
We compete with other transloaders in our logistics activities including, in part, storage and transportation of crude oil, and the movement of product by alternative means (e.g., pipelines). We also compete with natural gas suppliers and marketers in our home heating oil, residual oil and propane product lines. Bunkering requires facilities at ports to service vessels. In various other geographic markets, particularly the unbranded gasoline and distillates markets, we compete with integrated refiners, merchant refiners and regional marketing companies. Our retail gasoline stations compete with unbranded and branded retail gas stations as well as supermarket and warehouse stores that sell gasoline.
Some of our competitors are substantially larger than us, have greater financial resources and control greater supplies of refined petroleum products, renewable fuels, crude oil, natural gas and propane than we do. If we are unable to compete effectively, we may lose existing customers or fail to acquire new customers, which could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations and cash available for distribution to our unitholders. For example, if a competitor attempts to increase market share by reducing prices, our operating results and cash available for distribution to our unitholders could be adversely affected. We may not be able to compete successfully with these companies, and our ability to compete could be harmed by factors including price competition and the availability of alternative and less expensive fuels.
New entrants or increased competition in the convenience store industry could result in reduced gross profits.
We compete with numerous other convenience store chains, independent convenience stores, supermarkets, drugstores, discount warehouse clubs, motor fuel service stations, mass merchants, fast food operations and other similar retail outlets. Several non-traditional retailers, including supermarkets and club stores, compete directly with convenience stores.
We may not be able to renew our leases or our agreements for dedicated storage when they expire.
The bulk terminals we own or lease or at which we maintain dedicated storage facilities play a key role in moving product to our customers. As of December 31, 2016, we leased the entirety of two bulk terminals that we operated exclusively for our business and operated and maintained dedicated storage facilities at another 18 bulk terminals. The lease agreements governing these arrangements are subject to expiration at various dates through 2019. These arrangements may not be renewed when they expire or, if renewed, may not be renewed at rates and on terms at least as favorable. If these agreements are not renewed or we are unable to renew these agreements at rates and on terms at least as favorable, it could have an adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations and cash available for distribution to our unitholders.
We may not be able to lease sites we own or sub‑lease sites we lease with respect to the sale of gasoline on favorable terms and any such failure could adversely affect our financial condition, results of operations and cash available for distribution to our unitholders.
If we are unable to obtain tenants on favorable terms for sites we own or lease, the lease payments we receive may not be adequate to cover our rent expense for leased sites and may not be adequate to ensure that we meet our debt service requirements. We may lease certain sites where the rent expense we pay is more than the lease payments we collect. We cannot provide any assurance that our gross margin from the sale of transportation fuels and related convenience store items at sites will be adequate to offset unfavorable lease terms. The occurrence of these events could adversely affect our financial condition, results of operations and cash available for distribution to our unitholders.
Some of our sales are generated under contracts that must be renegotiated or replaced periodically. If we are unable to successfully renegotiate or replace these contracts, our financial condition, results of operations and cash available for distribution to our unitholders could be adversely affected.
Most of our arrangements with our customers are renegotiated or replaced periodically. As these contracts expire, they must be renegotiated or replaced. We may be unable to renegotiate or replace these contracts when they expire, and the terms of any renegotiated contracts may not be as favorable as the contracts they replace. Whether these contracts are successfully renegotiated or replaced is often subject to factors beyond our control. Such factors include fluctuations in refined petroleum product, renewable fuels, crude oil, natural gas and propane prices, counterparty ability
33
to pay for or accept the contracted volumes and a competitive marketplace for the services offered by us. If we cannot successfully renegotiate or replace our contracts or renegotiate or replace them on less favorable terms, sales from these arrangements could decline, and our financial condition, results of operations and cash available for distribution to our unitholders could be adversely affected.
Due to our lack of asset and geographic diversification, adverse developments in the terminals we use or in our operating areas would reduce our ability to make distributions to our unitholders.
We rely primarily on sales generated from products distributed from the terminals we own or control or to which we have access. Furthermore, the majority of our assets and operations are located in the Northeast. Due to our lack of diversification in asset type and location, an adverse development in these businesses or areas, including adverse developments due to catastrophic events or weather and decreases in demand for refined petroleum products, renewable fuels, crude oil, natural gas and propane, could have a significantly greater impact on our results of operations and cash available for distribution to our unitholders than if we maintained more diverse assets and locations.
Our operations are subject to operational hazards and unforeseen interruptions for which we may not be adequately insured.
We are not fully insured against all risks incident to our business. Our operations are subject to operational hazards and unforeseen interruptions such as natural disasters, adverse weather, accidents, fires, explosions, hazardous materials releases, mechanical failures, disruptions in supply infrastructure or logistics and other events beyond our control. If any of these events were to occur, we could incur substantial losses because of personal injury or loss of life, severe damage to and destruction of property and equipment, and pollution or other environmental damage resulting in curtailment or suspension of our related operations.
We store gasoline, renewable fuels, crude oil and propane in underground and above ground storage tanks. Our operations are also subject to significant hazards and risks inherent in storing gasoline. These hazards and risks include fires, explosions, spills, discharges and other releases, any of which could result in distribution difficulties and disruptions, environmental pollution, governmentally‑imposed fines or clean‑up obligations, personal injury or wrongful death claims and other damage to our properties and the properties of others.
Furthermore, we may be unable to maintain or obtain insurance of the type and amount we desire at reasonable rates. As a result of market conditions, premiums and deductibles for certain of our insurance policies have increased and could escalate further. In some instances, certain insurance could become unavailable or available only for reduced amounts of coverage. If we were to incur a significant liability for which we are not fully insured, it could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations and cash available for distribution to unitholders.
New, stricter environmental laws and other industry-related regulations or environmental litigation could significantly impact our operations and/or increase our costs, which could adversely affect our results of operations and financial condition.
Our operations are subject to federal, state and local laws and regulations regulating, among other matters, logistics activities, product quality specifications and other environmental matters. The trend in environmental regulation has been towards more restrictions and limitations on activities that may affect the environment over time. Our business may be adversely affected by increased costs and liabilities resulting from such stricter laws and regulations. We try to anticipate future regulatory requirements that might be imposed and plan accordingly to remain in compliance with changing environmental laws and regulations and to minimize the costs of such compliance. Risks related to our environmental permits, including the risk of noncompliance, permit interpretation, permit modification, renewal of permits on less favorable terms, judicial or administrative challenges to permits by citizens groups or federal, state or local entities or permit revocation are inherent in the operation of our business, as it is with other companies engaged in similar businesses. We may not be able to renew the permits necessary for our operations, or we may be forced to accept terms in future permits that limit our operations or result in additional compliance costs.
34
In recent years, the transport of crude oil and ethanol has become subject to additional regulation. The establishment of more stringent design or construction, or other requirements for railroad tank cars that are used to transport crude oil and ethanol with too short of a timeframe for compliance may lead to shortages of compliant railcars available to transport crude oil and ethanol, which could adversely affect our business. Likewise, in recent years, efforts have commenced to seek to use federal, state and local laws to contest issuance of permits, contest renewal of permits and restrict the types of railroad tanks cars that can be used to deliver products to bulk storage terminals. Were such laws to come into effect and were they to survive appeals and judicial review, they would potentially expose our operations to duplicative and possibly inconsistent regulation.
There can be no assurances as to the timing and type of such changes in existing laws or the promulgation of new laws or the amount of any required expenditures associated therewith.
Climate change continues to attract considerable public and scientific attention. In recent years environmental interest groups have filed suit against companies in the energy industry related to climate change. Should such suits succeed, we could face additional compliance costs or litigation risks.
Our terminalling operations are subject to federal, state and local laws and regulations relating to environmental protection and operational safety that could require us to incur substantial costs.
The risk of substantial environmental costs and liabilities is inherent in terminal operations, and we may incur substantial environmental costs and liabilities. Our terminalling operations involving the receipt, storage and redelivery of refined petroleum products, renewable fuels, crude oil and propane are subject to stringent federal, state and local laws and regulations governing the discharge of materials into the environment, or otherwise relating to the protection of the environment, operational safety and related matters. Compliance with these laws and regulations increases our overall cost of business, including our capital costs to maintain and upgrade equipment and facilities. We utilize a number of terminals that are owned and operated by third parties who are also subject to these stringent federal, state and local environmental laws in their operations. Their compliance with these requirements could increase the cost of doing business with these facilities. Please read “Items 1. and 2. Business and Properties—Environmental.”
In addition, our operations could be adversely affected if shippers of refined petroleum products, renewable fuels, crude oil and propane incur additional costs or liabilities associated with environmental regulations. These shippers could increase their charges to us or discontinue service altogether. Similarly, many of our suppliers face a trend of increasing environmental regulations, which could likewise restrict their ability to produce crude oil or fuels, or increase their costs of production, and thus impact the price of, and/or their ability to deliver, these products.
Various governmental authorities, including the EPA, have the power to enforce compliance with these regulations and the permits issued under them, and violators are subject to administrative, civil and criminal penalties, including fines, injunctions or both. Joint and several liability may be incurred, without regard to fault or the legality of the original conduct, under federal and state environmental laws for the remediation of contaminated areas at our facilities and those where we do business. Private parties, including the owners of properties located near our terminal facilities and those with whom we do business, also may have the right to pursue legal actions against us to enforce compliance with environmental laws, as well as seek damages for personal injury or property damage. We may also be held liable for damages to natural resources.
The possibility exists that new, stricter laws, regulations or enforcement policies could significantly increase our compliance costs and the cost of any remediation that may become necessary, some of which may be material. Our insurance may not cover all environmental risks and costs or may not provide sufficient coverage in the event an environmental claim is made against us. We may incur increased costs because of stricter pollution control requirements or liabilities resulting from noncompliance with required operating or other regulatory permits. New environmental regulations, such as those related to the emissions of GHGs, might adversely affect our products and activities, including the storage of refined petroleum products, renewable fuels, crude oil and propane, as well as our waste management practices and our control of air emissions. Enactment of laws and passage of regulations regarding GHG emissions, or other actions to limit GHG emissions may reduce demand for fossil fuels and impact our business. Federal and state agencies also could impose additional safety regulations to which we would be subject. Because the laws and regulations
35
applicable to our operations are subject to change, we cannot provide any assurance that compliance with future laws and regulations will not have a material effect on our results of operations.
Additionally, the construction of new terminals or the expansion of an existing terminal involves numerous regulatory, environmental, political and legal uncertainties, most of which are not in our control. Delays, litigation, local concerns and difficulty in obtaining approvals for projects requiring federal, state or local permits could impact our ability to build, expand and operate strategic facilities and infrastructure, which could adversely impact growth and operational efficiency.
Increased regulation of GHG emissions could result in increased operating costs and reduced demand for refined petroleum products as a fuel source, which could reduce demand for our products, decrease our revenues and reduce our profitability.
Combustion of fossil fuels, such as the refined petroleum products we sell, results in the emission of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. On December 15, 2009, the EPA published its findings that emissions of carbon dioxide and other GHGs present an endangerment to public health and the environment because emissions of such gases are, according to the EPA, contributing to warming of the earth’s atmosphere and other climatic changes, and the EPA has begun to regulate GHG emissions pursuant to the CAA. In addition, it is possible federal legislation could be adopted in the future to restrict GHG, as Congress has considered various proposals to reduce GHG emissions from time to time. Many states and regions have adopted GHG initiatives. Please read “Items 1. and 2. Business and Properties—Environmental—Air Emissions.”
There are many regulatory approaches currently in effect or being considered to address GHGs, including possible future U.S. treaty commitments, new federal or state legislation that may impose a carbon emissions tax or establish a cap‑and‑trade program and regulation by the EPA. Please read “Items 1. and 2. Business and Properties—Environmental—Air Emissions.” Future international, federal and state initiatives to control GHG emissions, or an unfavorable outcome in the methane judicial challenges, could result in increased costs associated with refined petroleum products consumption, such as costs to install additional controls to reduce GHG emissions or costs to purchase emissions reduction credits to comply with future emissions trading programs. Such increased costs could result in reduced demand for refined petroleum products and some customers switching to alternative sources of fuel which could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations and cash available for distributions to our unitholders.
Our business involves the buying, selling and shipping by rail of crude oil from the Bakken Shale, which involves risks of derailment, accidents and liabilities associated with cleanup and damages, as well as potential regulatory changes that may adversely impact our business, financial condition or results of operations.
Our operations involve the buying and selling of crude oil including from the Bakken Shale and shipping it by rail to various markets including on railcars that we lease. The derailments of trains transporting crude oil in North America have caused various regulatory agencies and industry organizations, as well as federal, state and municipal governments, to focus attention on transportation by rail of flammable materials. Additional measures have been taken in both the United States. and Canada to regulate the transportation of these products. Please read “Items 1. and 2. Business and Properties—Environmental— Hazardous Materials Transportation.”
Any changes to the existing laws and regulations, or promulgation of new laws and regulations, including any voluntary measures by the rail industry, that result in new requirements for the design, construction or operation of tank cars used to transport crude oil may require us to make expenditures to comply with new standards that are material to our operations, and, to the extent that new regulations require design changes or other modifications of tank cars, we may incur significant constraints on transportation capacity during the period while tank cars are being retrofitted or newly constructed to comply with the new regulations. We cannot assure that the totality of costs incurred to comply with any new standards and regulations and any impacts on our operations will not be material to our business, financial condition or results of operations. In addition, any derailment of crude oil from the Bakken Shale involving crude oil that we have purchased or are shipping may result in claims being brought against us that may involve significant liabilities. Although
36
we believe that we are adequately insured against such events, we cannot assure you that our policies will cover the entirety of any damages that may arise from such an event.
We are subject to federal, state and local laws and regulations that govern the product quality specifications of the refined petroleum products, renewable fuels, crude oil, natural gas and propane we purchase, store, transport and sell.
Various federal, state and local government agencies have the authority to prescribe specific product quality specifications to the sale of commodities. Our business includes such commodities. Changes in product quality specifications, such as reduced sulfur content in refined petroleum products, or other more stringent requirements for fuels, could reduce our ability to procure product and our sales volume, require us to incur additional handling costs and/or require the expenditure of capital. For instance, different product specifications for different markets could require additional storage. If we are unable to procure product or recover these costs through increased sales, we may not be able to meet our financial obligations. Failure to comply with these regulations could result in substantial penalties.
We are subject to federal and state environmental regulations which could have a material adverse effect on our retail operations business.
Our retail operations are subject to extensive federal and state laws and regulations, including those relating to the protection of the environment, waste management, discharge of hazardous materials, pollution prevention, as well as laws and regulations relating to public safety and health. Certain of these laws and regulations may require assessment or remediation efforts. Retail operations with USTs are subject to federal and state regulations and legislation. Compliance with existing and future environmental laws regulating USTs may require significant capital expenditures and increased operating and maintenance costs. The operation of USTs also poses certain other risks, including damages associated with soil and groundwater contamination. Leaks from USTs which may occur at one or more of our gas stations may impact soil or groundwater and could result in fines or civil liability for us. We may be required to make material expenditures to modify operations, perform site cleanups or curtail operations.
We are subject to federal and state non‑environmental regulations which could have an adverse effect on our convenience store business and results of operations.
Our convenience store business is subject to extensive governmental laws and regulations that include legal restrictions on the sale of alcohol, tobacco and lottery products, food labelling, safety and health requirements and public accessibility. Furthermore, state and local regulatory agencies have the power to approve, revoke, suspend, or deny applications for and renewals of permits and licenses relating to the sale of alcohol, tobacco and lottery products or to seek other remedies. A violation of or change in such laws and/or regulations could have an adverse effect on our convenience store business and results of operations.
Regulations related to wages also affect our business. Any appreciable increase in the statutory minimum wage would result in an increase in our labor costs and such cost increase could adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.
Any terrorist attacks aimed at our facilities and any global and domestic economic repercussions from terrorist activities and the government’s response could adversely affect our financial condition, results of operations and cash available for distribution to our unitholders.
Since the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, the U.S. government has issued warnings that energy assets may be future targets of terrorist organizations. In addition to the threat of terrorist attacks, we face various other security threats, including cyber security threats to gain unauthorized access to sensitive information or systems or to render data or systems unusable; threats to the safety of our employees; threats to the security of our facilities, such as terminals and pipelines, and infrastructure or third‑party facilities and infrastructure. These developments have subjected our operations to increased risks.
37
Although we utilize various procedures and controls to monitor these threats and mitigate our exposure to security threats, there can be no assurance that these procedures and controls will be sufficient in preventing security threats from materializing. If any of these events were to materialize, they could lead to losses of sensitive information, critical infrastructure, personnel or capabilities, essential to our operations and could have a material adverse effect on our reputation, financial position, results of operations, or cash flows. Cyber security attacks in particular are evolving and include malicious software, attempts to gain unauthorized access to, or otherwise disrupt, our pipeline control systems, attempts to gain unauthorized access to data, and other electronic security breaches that could lead to disruptions in critical systems, including our pipeline control systems, unauthorized release of confidential or otherwise protected information and corruption of data. These events could damage our reputation and lead to financial losses from remedial actions, loss of business or potential liability.
We incur costs for providing facility security and may incur additional costs in the future with respect to the receipt, storage and distribution of our products. Additional security measures could also restrict our ability to distribute refined petroleum products, renewable fuels, crude oil, natural gas and propane. Any future terrorist attack on our facilities, or those of our customers, could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations and cash available for distribution to our unitholders.
Terrorist activity could lead to increased volatility in prices for home heating oil, gasoline and other products we sell, which could decrease our customers’ demand for these products. Insurance carriers are required to offer coverage for terrorist activities as a result of federal legislation. We purchase this coverage with respect to our property and casualty insurance programs. This additional coverage resulted in additional insurance premiums which could increase further in the future.
We depend on key personnel for the success of our business.
We depend on the services of our senior management team and other key personnel. The loss of the services of any member of senior management or key employee could have an adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations and cash available for distribution to our unitholders. We may not be able to locate or employ on acceptable terms qualified replacements for senior management or other key employees if their services were no longer available.
Certain executive officers of our general partner perform services for certain of our affiliates pursuant to shared services agreements. Please read Item 13, “Certain Relationships and Related Transactions, and Director Independence—Relationship of Management with Global Petroleum Corp. and AE Holdings Corp.”
We depend on unionized labor for the operation of certain of our terminals. Any work stoppages or labor disturbances at these terminals could disrupt our business.
Any work stoppages or labor disturbances by our unionized labor force at our facilities could have an adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations and cash available for distribution to our unitholders. In addition, employees who are not currently represented by labor unions may seek representation in the future, and any renegotiation of collective bargaining agreements may result in terms that are less favorable to us.
We rely on our information technology systems to manage numerous aspects of our business, and a disruption of these systems could adversely affect our business.
We depend on our information technology (“IT”) systems to manage numerous aspects of our business and to provide analytical information to management. Our IT systems are an essential component of our business and growth strategies, and a serious disruption to our IT systems could significantly limit our ability to manage and operate our business effectively. These systems are vulnerable to, among other things, damage and interruption from power loss or natural disasters, computer system and network failures, loss of telecommunication services, physical and electronic loss of data, security breaches and computer viruses. We have a disaster recovery plan in place, but this plan may not entirely prevent delays or other complications that could arise from an IT systems failure. Any failure or interruption in our IT systems could have a negative impact on our operating results, cause our business and competitive position to suffer and damage our reputation.
38
In the normal course of our business, we may obtain personal data, including credit card information. While we believe we have adequate security controls over individually identifiable customer, employee and vendor data provided to us, a breakdown or a breach in our systems that results in the unauthorized release of individually identifiable customer or other sensitive data could nonetheless occur and have a material adverse effect on our reputation, operating results and financial condition.
If we fail to maintain an effective system of internal controls, then we may not be able to accurately report our financial results or prevent fraud. As a result, current and potential unitholders could lose confidence in our financial reporting, which would harm our business and the trading price of our common units.
Effective internal controls are necessary for us to provide reliable financial reports, prevent fraud and operate successfully as a public company. If our efforts to maintain internal controls are not successful or if we are unable to maintain adequate controls over our financial processes and reporting in the future or if we are unable to comply with our obligations under Section 404 of the Sarbanes‑Oxley Act of 2002, our operating results could be harmed or we may fail to meet our reporting obligations. Ineffective internal controls also could cause investors to lose confidence in our reported financial information, which would likely have a negative effect on the trading price of our common units.
Risks Related to our Structure
Our general partner and its affiliates have conflicts of interest and limited fiduciary duties, which could permit them to favor their own interests to the detriment of our unitholders.
As of March 7, 2017, affiliates of our general partner, including directors and executive officers and their affiliates, owned 21.9% of our common units and the entire general partner interest. Although our general partner has a fiduciary duty to manage us in a manner beneficial to us and our unitholders, the directors and officers of our general partner have a fiduciary duty to manage our general partner in a manner beneficial to its owners. Furthermore, certain directors and officers of our general partner are directors or officers of affiliates of our general partner. Conflicts of interest may arise between our general partner and its affiliates, on the one hand, and us and our unitholders, on the other hand. As a result of these conflicts, our general partner may favor its own interests and the interests of its affiliates over the interests of our unitholders. Please read “—Our partnership agreement limits our general partner’s fiduciary duties to unitholders and restricts the remedies available to unitholders for actions taken by our general partner that might otherwise constitute breaches of fiduciary duty.” These conflicts include, among others, the following situations:
· |
Our general partner is allowed to take into account the interests of parties other than us, such as affiliates of its members, in resolving conflicts of interest, which has the effect of limiting its fiduciary duty to our unitholders. |
· |
Affiliates of our general partner may engage in competition with us under certain circumstances. Please read “—Certain members of the Slifka family and their affiliates may engage in activities that compete directly with us.” |
· |
Neither our partnership agreement nor any other agreement requires owners of our general partner to pursue a business strategy that favors us. Directors and officers of our general partner’s owners have a fiduciary duty to make these decisions in the best interest of such owners which may be contrary to our interests. |
· |
Some officers of our general partner who provide services to us devote time to affiliates of our general partner. |
· |
Our general partner has limited its liability and reduced its fiduciary duties under the partnership agreement, while also restricting the remedies available to our unitholders for actions that, without these limitations, might constitute breaches of fiduciary duty. As a result of purchasing common units, |
39
unitholders consent to some actions and conflicts of interest that might otherwise constitute a breach of fiduciary or other duties under applicable state law. |
· |
Our general partner determines the amount and timing of asset purchases and sales, borrowings, issuances of additional partnership securities and reserves, each of which can affect the amount of cash available for distribution to our unitholders. |
· |
Our general partner determines the amount and timing of any capital expenditures and whether a capital expenditure is a maintenance capital expenditure, which reduces distributable cash flow, or a capital expenditure for acquisitions or capital improvements, which does not, and determination can affect the amount of cash distributed to our unitholders. |
· |
In some instances, our general partner may cause us to borrow funds in order to permit the payment of cash distributions, even if the purpose or effect of the borrowing is to make incentive distributions. |
· |
Our general partner determines which costs incurred by it and its affiliates are reimbursable by us. |
· |
Our partnership agreement does not restrict our general partner from causing us to pay it or its affiliates for any services rendered on terms that are fair and reasonable to us or entering into additional contractual arrangements with any of these entities on our behalf. |
· |
Our general partner intends to limit its liability regarding our contractual and other obligations. |
· |
Our general partner may exercise its limited right to call and purchase common units if it and its affiliates own more than 80% of the common units. |
· |
Our general partner controls the enforcement of obligations owed to us by it and its affiliates. |
· |
Our general partner decides whether to retain separate counsel, accountants or others to perform services for us. |
Please read Item 13, “Certain Relationships and Related Transactions, and Director Independence—Omnibus Agreement and Business Opportunity Agreement.”
Our partnership agreement limits our general partner’s fiduciary duties to unitholders and restricts the remedies available to unitholders for actions taken by our general partner that might otherwise constitute breaches of fiduciary duty.
Our partnership agreement contains provisions that reduce the standards to which our general partner would otherwise be held by state fiduciary duty law. For example, our partnership agreement:
· |
permits our general partner to make a number of decisions in its individual capacity, as opposed to in its capacity as our general partner. This entitles our general partner to consider only the interests and factors that it desires, and it has no duty or obligation to give any consideration to any interest of, or factors affecting, us, our affiliates or any limited partner. Examples include the exercise of its limited call right, its voting rights with respect to the units it owns, its registration rights and its determination whether or not to consent to any merger or consolidation of us; |
· |
provides that our general partner shall not have any liability to us or our unitholders for decisions made in its capacity as general partner so long as it acted in good faith, meaning it believed that the decision was in our best interests; |
40
· |
generally provides that affiliated transactions and resolutions of conflicts of interest not approved by the conflicts committee of the board of directors of our general partner and not involving a vote of unitholders must be on terms no less favorable to us than those generally being provided to or available from unrelated third parties or be “fair and reasonable” to us and that, in determining whether a transaction or resolution is “fair and reasonable,” our general partner may consider the totality of the relationships between the parties involved, including other transactions that may be particularly advantageous or beneficial to us; and |
· |
provides that our general partner and its officers and directors will not be liable for monetary damages to us, our limited partners or assignees for any acts or omissions unless there has been a final and non‑appealable judgment entered by a court of competent jurisdiction determining that the general partner or those other persons acted in bad faith or engaged in fraud or willful misconduct. |
By purchasing a common unit, a common unitholder will become bound by the provisions of the partnership agreement, including the provisions described above.
Unitholders have limited voting rights and are not entitled to elect our general partner or its directors or remove our general partner without the consent of the holders of at least 66 2/3% of the outstanding units (including units held by our general partner and its affiliates), which could lower the trading price of our common units.
Unlike the holders of common stock in a corporation, unitholders have only limited voting rights on matters affecting our business and, therefore, limited ability to influence management’s decisions regarding our business. Unitholders have no right to elect our general partner or its board of directors on an annual or other continuing basis. The board of directors of our general partner is chosen entirely by its members and not by the unitholders. Furthermore, if the unitholders are dissatisfied with the performance of our general partner, they have limited ability to remove our general partner. The vote of the holders of at least 66 2/3% of all outstanding common units (including units held by our general partner and its affiliates) is required to remove our general partner. As a result of these limitations, the price at which the common units trade could diminish because of the absence or reduction of a takeover premium in the trading price.
We may issue additional units without unitholder approval, which would dilute unitholders’ ownership interests.
At any time, we may issue an unlimited number of limited partner interests of any type without the approval of our unitholders. The issuance by us of additional common units or other equity securities of equal or senior rank will have the following effects:
· |
our unitholders’ proportionate ownership interest in us will decrease; |
· |
the amount of cash available for distribution on each unit may decrease; |
· |
the relative voting strength of each previously outstanding unit may be diminished; and |
· |
the market price of the common units may decline. |
The market price of our common units could be adversely affected by sales of substantial amounts of our common units, including sales by our existing unitholders.
A substantial number of our securities may be sold in the future either pursuant to Rule 144 under the Securities Act or pursuant to a registration statement filed with the SEC. Rule 144 under the Securities Act provides that after a holding period of six months, non‑ affiliates may resell restricted securities of reporting companies, provided that current public information for the reporting company is available. After a holding period of one year, non‑affiliates may resell without restriction, and affiliates may resell in compliance with the volume, current public information and manner of sale requirements of Rule 144. Pursuant to our partnership agreement, members of the Slifka family have registration rights with respect to the common units owned by them.
41
Sales by any of our existing unitholders of a substantial number of our common units, or the perception that such sales might occur, could have a material adverse effect on the price of our common units or could impair our ability to obtain capital through an offering of equity securities.
Future market fluctuations may result in a lower price of our common units.
An increase in interest rates may cause the market price of our common units to decline.
Like all equity investments, an investment in our common units is subject to certain risks. In exchange for accepting these risks, investors may expect to receive a higher rate of return than would otherwise be obtainable from lower‑risk investments. Accordingly, as interest rates rise, the ability of investors to obtain higher risk‑adjusted rates of return by purchasing government‑backed debt securities may cause a corresponding decline in demand for riskier investments generally, including yield‑based equity investments such as publicly‑traded limited partnership interests. Reduced demand for our common units resulting from investors seeking other more favorable investment opportunities may cause the trading price of our common units to decline.
Our general partner has a limited call right that may require unitholders to sell their common units at an undesirable time or price.
If at any time our general partner and its affiliates own more than 80% of the common units, our general partner will have the right, but not the obligation, which it may assign to any of its affiliates or to us, to acquire all, but not less than all, of the common units held by unaffiliated persons at a price not less than their then‑current market price. As a result, unitholders may be required to sell their common units at an undesirable time or price and may not receive any return on their investment. Unitholders may also incur a tax liability upon a sale of their units. Our general partner is not obligated to obtain a fairness opinion regarding the value of the common units to be repurchased by it upon exercise of the limited call right. There is no restriction in our partnership agreement that prevents our general partner from issuing additional common units and exercising its call right. If our general partner exercises its limited call right, the effect would be to take us private and, if the units were subsequently deregistered, we would no longer be subject to the reporting requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Our partnership agreement restricts the voting rights of unitholders owning 20% or more of our common units.
Our partnership agreement restricts unitholders’ voting rights by providing that any units held by a person that owns 20% or more of any class of units then outstanding, other than our general partner, its affiliates, their transferees and persons who acquired such units with the prior approval of the board of directors of our general partner, cannot vote on any matter. Our partnership agreement also contains provisions limiting the ability of unitholders to call meetings or acquire information about our operations, as well as other provisions limiting the unitholders’ ability to influence the manner or direction of management.
Cost reimbursements due to our general partner and its affiliates will reduce cash available for distribution to our unitholders.
Prior to making any distribution on the common units, we reimburse our general partner and its affiliates for all expenses they incur on our behalf, which is determined by our general partner in its sole discretion. These expenses include all costs incurred by the general partner and its affiliates in managing and operating us, including costs for rendering corporate staff and support services to us. We are managed and operated by directors and executive officers of our general partner. In addition, the majority of our operating personnel are employees of our general partner. Please read Item 13, “Certain Relationships and Related Transactions, and Director Independence.” The reimbursement of expenses and payment of fees, if any, to our general partner and its affiliates could adversely affect our ability to pay cash distributions to our unitholders.
42
Unitholders may not have limited liability if a court finds that unitholder action constitutes control of our business.
A general partner of a partnership generally has unlimited liability for the obligations of the partnership, except for those contractual obligations of the partnership that are expressly made without recourse to the general partner. Our partnership is organized under Delaware law, and we conduct business in a number of other states. The limitations on the liability of holders of limited partner interests for the obligations of a limited partnership have not been clearly established in some of the other states in which we do business. A unitholder could be liable for our obligations as if he were a general partner if:
· |
a court or government agency determined that we were conducting business in a state but had not complied with that particular state’s partnership statute; or |
· |
a unitholder’s right to act with other unitholders to remove or replace the general partner, approve some amendments to our partnership agreement or take other actions under our partnership agreement constitute “control” of our business. |
Unitholders may have liability to repay distributions.
Under certain circumstances, unitholders may have to repay amounts wrongfully returned or distributed to them. Under Delaware law, we may not make a distribution to unitholders if the distribution would cause our liabilities to exceed the fair value of our assets. Delaware law provides that for a period of three years from the date of the impermissible distribution, limited partners who received the distribution and who knew at the time of the distribution that it violated Delaware law will be liable to the limited partnership for the distribution amount. Purchasers of units who become limited partners are liable for the obligations of the transferring limited partner to make contributions to us that are known to the purchaser of units at the time it became a limited partner and for unknown obligations if the liabilities could be determined from the partnership agreement. Liabilities to partners on account of their partnership interests and liabilities that are non‑recourse to us are not counted for purposes of determining whether a distribution is permitted.
The control of our general partner may be transferred to a third party without unitholder consent.
Our general partner may transfer its general partner interest to a third party in a merger or in a sale of all or substantially all of its assets without the consent of the unitholders. Furthermore, there is no restriction in the partnership agreement on the ability of the members of our general partner from transferring their respective membership interests in our general partner to a third party. The new members of our general partner would then be in a position to replace the board of directors and officers of our general partner with their own choices and control the decisions taken by the board of directors and officers of our general partner.
Certain members of the Slifka family and their affiliates may engage in activities that compete directly with us.
Mr. Richard Slifka and his affiliates (other than us) are subject to noncompetition provisions in the omnibus agreement and business opportunity agreement. In addition Mr. Eric Slifka’s and Mr. Andrew Slifka’s employment agreements contain noncompetition provisions. These agreements do not prohibit Messrs. Richard Slifka, Eric Slifka and Andrew Slifka and certain affiliates of our general partner from owning certain assets or engaging in certain businesses that compete directly or indirectly with us. Please read Item 13, “Certain Relationships and Related Transactions, and Director Independence—Omnibus Agreement and Business Opportunity Agreement.”
43
Tax Risks
Our tax treatment depends on our status as a partnership for federal income tax purposes, as well as us not being subject to a material amount of entity-level taxation by individual states. If the Internal Revenue Service, or IRS, were to treat us as a corporation for federal income tax purposes, which would subject us to entity level taxation, then our cash available for distribution to our unitholders would be substantially reduced.
The anticipated after‑tax economic benefit of an investment in the common units depends largely on our being treated as a partnership for federal income tax purposes. We have not requested a ruling from the IRS on this or any other tax matter affecting us.
Despite the fact that we are a limited partnership under Delaware law, it is possible in certain circumstances for a partnership such as ours to be treated as a corporation for federal income tax purposes. Although we do not believe based upon our current operations that we are or will be so treated, a change in our business or a change in current law could cause us to be treated as a corporation for federal income tax purposes or otherwise subject us to taxation as an entity.
If we were treated as a corporation for federal income tax purposes, we would pay federal income tax on our taxable income at the corporate tax rate. Distributions would generally be taxed again as corporate distributions, and no income, gains, losses, deductions or credits would flow through to you. Because a tax would be imposed upon us as a corporation, our cash available for distribution to our unitholders would be substantially reduced. Therefore, if we were treated as a corporation for federal income tax purposes, there would be a material reduction in the anticipated cash flow and after‑tax return to our unitholders, likely causing a substantial reduction in the value of our common units.
Our partnership agreement provides that if a law is enacted or existing law is modified or interpreted in a manner that subjects us to taxation as a corporation or otherwise subjects us to additional amounts of entity level taxation for federal, state, local or foreign income tax purposes, the minimum quarterly distribution amount and the target distribution amounts may be adjusted to reflect the impact of that law or interpretation on us. At the state level, several states have been evaluating ways to independently subject partnerships to entity level taxation through the imposition of state income, franchise and other forms of taxation. Specifically, we currently own assets and conduct business in several states, some of which imposes a margin or franchise tax. In the future, we may expand our operations. Imposition of a similar tax on us in other jurisdictions that we may expand to or an increase in the existing tax rates would reduce the cash available for distribution to our unitholders.
The tax treatment of publicly traded partnerships or an investment in our common units could be subject to potential legislative, judicial or administrative changes or differing interpretations, possibly applied on a retroactive basis.
The present U.S. federal income tax treatment of publicly traded partnerships, including us, or an investment in our common units may be modified by administrative, legislative or judicial changes or differing interpretations at any time. From time to time, members of Congress propose and consider substantive changes to the existing federal income tax laws that affect publicly traded partnerships. Although there is no current legislative proposal, a prior legislative proposal would have eliminated the qualifying income exception to the treatment of all publicly traded partnerships as corporations upon which we rely for our treatment as a partnership for U.S. federal income tax purposes.
Any modification to the U.S. federal income tax laws may be applied retroactively and could make it more difficult or impossible for us to meet the exception for certain publicly traded partnerships to be treated as partnerships for U.S. federal income tax purposes. We are unable to predict whether any of these changes or other proposals will ultimately be enacted. Any similar or future legislative changes could negatively impact the value of an investment in our common units.
On January 24, 2017, the U.S. Treasury Department and the IRS published final regulations regarding which activities give rise to qualifying income (the “Final Regulations”) in the Federal Register. We do not believe the Final Regulations affect our ability to be treated as a partnership for U.S. federal income tax purposes.
44
We have subsidiaries that are treated as corporations for federal income tax purposes and subject to corporate‑level income taxes.
As of December 31, 2016, we conducted substantially all of our operations of our end‑user business through six subsidiaries that are treated as corporations for federal income tax purposes. These corporations engage in the retail sale of gasoline and/or operates convenience stores and collect rents on personal property leased to dealers and commissioned agents at other stations. We may elect to conduct additional operations through these corporate subsidiaries in the future. These corporate subsidiaries are subject to corporate‑level taxes, which reduce the cash available for distribution to us and, in turn, to unitholders. If the IRS were to successfully assert that these corporations have more tax liability than we anticipate or legislation were enacted that increased the corporate tax rate, our cash available for distribution to unitholders would be further reduced.
If the IRS contests the federal income tax positions we take, the market for our common units may be adversely impacted, and the costs of any IRS contest will reduce our cash available for distribution to unitholders.
We have not requested a ruling from the IRS with respect to our treatment as a partnership for federal income tax purposes. The IRS may adopt positions that differ from the tax positions we take. It may be necessary to resort to administrative or court proceedings to sustain some or all of the positions we take. A court may not agree with some or all of the positions we take. Any contest with the IRS may materially and adversely impact the market for our common units and the price at which they trade. In addition, because the costs will be borne indirectly by our unitholders and our general partner, the costs of any contest with the IRS will result in a reduction in cash available for distribution.
If the IRS makes audit adjustments to our income tax returns for tax years beginning after December 31, 2017, it (and some states) may assess and collect any taxes (including any applicable penalties and interest) resulting from such audit adjustment directly from us, in which case our cash available for distribution to our unitholders might be substantially reduced.
Pursuant to the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015, for tax years beginning after December 31, 2017, if the IRS makes audit adjustments to our income tax returns, it (and some states) may assess and collect any taxes (including any applicable penalties and interest) resulting from such audit adjustment directly from us. Under our partnership agreement, our general partner is permitted to make elections under the new rules to either pay the taxes (including any applicable penalties and interest) directly to the IRS or, if we are eligible, issue a revised Schedule K-1 to each unitholder with respect to an audited and adjusted return. Although our general partner may elect to have our unitholders take such audit adjustment into account in accordance with their interests in us during the tax year under audit, there can be no assurance that such election will be practical, permissible or effective in all circumstances. As a result, our current unitholders may bear some or all of the tax liability resulting from such audit adjustment, even if such unitholders did not own units in us during the tax year under audit. If, as a result of any such audit adjustment, we are required to make payments of taxes, penalties and interest, our cash available for distribution to our unitholders might be substantially reduced. These rules are not applicable for tax years beginning on or prior to December 31, 2017.
Even if our unitholders do not receive any cash distributions from us, they will be required to pay taxes on their share of our taxable income.
Because unitholders are treated as partners to whom we allocate taxable income, which could be different in amount than the cash we distribute, unitholders are required to pay any federal income taxes and, in some cases, state and local income taxes on their share of our taxable income even if they do not receive any cash distributions from us. For example, if we sell assets and use the proceeds to repay existing debt or fund capital expenditures, you may be allocated taxable income and gain resulting from the sale and our cash available for distribution would not increase. Similarly, taking advantage of opportunities to reduce our existing debt, such as debt exchanges, debt repurchases, or modifications of our existing debt could result in “cancellation of indebtedness income” being allocated to our unitholders as taxable income without any increase in our cash available for distribution. Our unitholders may not receive cash distributions from us equal to their share of our taxable income or even equal to the tax liability that results from that income.
45
Tax gain or loss on the disposition of our common units could be more or less than expected.
If a unitholder sells his common units, he will recognize a gain or loss equal to the difference between the amount realized and his tax basis in those common units. Because distributions to a unitholder in excess of the unitholder’s allocable share of our net taxable income decreases the unitholder’s tax basis in his common units, the amount, if any, of such prior excess distributions with respect to the units sold will, in effect, become taxable income to him if the common units are sold at a price greater than his tax basis in the common units, even if the price he receives is less than his original cost. In addition, because the amount realized includes a unitholder’s share of our non‑recourse liabilities, if a unitholder sells his units, he may incur a tax liability in excess of the amount of cash he receives from the sale.
A substantial portion of the amount realized from the sale of units by an investor, whether or not representing gain, may be taxed as ordinary income to the holder due to potential recapture items, including depreciation recapture. Thus, a unitholder may recognize both ordinary income and capital loss from the sale of his units if the amount realized on a sale of such units is less than such unitholder’s adjusted basis in the units. Net capital loss may only offset capital gains and, in the case of individuals, up to $3,000 of ordinary income per year. In the taxable period in which a unitholder sells his units, the unitholder may recognize ordinary income from our allocations of income and gain to him prior to the sale and from recapture items that generally cannot be offset by any capital loss recognized upon the sale of units.
Tax‑exempt entities and non‑U.S. persons face unique tax issues from owning our common units that may result in adverse tax consequences to them.
Investment in common units by tax‑exempt entities, such as employee benefit plans, individual retirement accounts (known as IRAs), and non‑U.S. persons raises issues unique to them. For example, virtually all of our income allocated to organizations exempt from federal income tax, including IRAs and other retirement plans, will be unrelated business taxable income and will be taxable to them. Allocations and/or distributions to non‑U.S. persons will be subject to withholding taxes imposed at the highest effective tax rate applicable to such non‑U.S. persons, and each non‑U.S. person will be required to file U.S. federal tax returns and pay tax on their share of our taxable income. If you are a tax exempt entity or a non‑U.S. person, you should consult your tax advisor before investing in our common units.
We treat each purchaser of our common units as having the same tax benefits without regard to the actual common units purchased. The IRS may challenge this treatment, which could adversely affect the value of the common units.
To maintain the uniformity of the economic and tax characteristics of our common units, we have adopted certain depreciation and amortization positions that may not conform to all aspects of existing Treasury Regulations. A successful IRS challenge to those positions could adversely affect the amount of taxable income or loss allocated to our unitholders. It also could affect the gain from a unitholder’s sale of common units or result in audit adjustments to our unitholders’ tax returns without the benefit of additional deductions. Consequently, a successful IRS challenge could have a negative impact on the value of our common units.
We generally prorate our items of income, gain, loss and deduction between transferors and transferees of our common units each month based upon the ownership of our common units on the first day of each month, instead of on the basis of the date a particular common unit is transferred. The IRS may challenge this treatment, which could change the allocation of items of income, gain, loss and deduction among our unitholders.
We generally prorate our items of income, gain, loss and deduction between transferors and transferees of our common units each month based upon the ownership of our common units on the first day of each month (the “Allocation Date”), instead of on the basis of the date a particular common unit is transferred. Similarly, we generally allocate certain deductions for depreciation of capital additions, gain or loss realized on a sale or other disposition of our assets and, in the discretion of the general partner, any other extraordinary item of income, gain, loss or deduction based upon ownership on the Allocation Date. The U.S. Department of the Treasury adopted final Treasury Regulations allowing a similar monthly simplifying convention for taxable years beginning on or after August 3, 2015. However, such regulations do not specifically authorize the use of the proration method we have adopted and may not specifically
46
authorize all aspects of our proration method thereafter. If the IRS were to challenge our proration method, we may be required to change the allocation of items of income, gain, loss and deduction among our unitholders.
A unitholder whose common units are the subject of a securities loan (e.g., a loan to a “short seller” to cover a short sale of common units may be considered as having disposed of those common units. If so, the unitholder would no longer be treated for tax purposes as a partner with respect to those common units during the period of the loan and may recognize gain or loss from the disposition.
Because there are no specific rules governing the federal income tax consequences of loaning a partnership interest, a unitholder whose common units are the subject of a securities loan may be considered to have disposed of the loaned units. In that case, the unitholder may no longer be treated for tax purposes as a partner with respect to those common units during the period of the loan, and the unitholder may recognize gain or loss from such disposition. Moreover, during the period of the loan, any of our income, gain, loss or deduction with respect to those common units may not be reportable by the unitholder and any cash distributions received by the unitholder as to those common units could be fully taxable as ordinary income. Unitholders desiring to assure their status as partners and avoid the risk of gain recognition from a loan of their common units should modify any applicable brokerage account agreements to prohibit their brokers from borrowing their common units.
We have adopted certain valuation methodologies in determining a unitholder’s allocations of income, gain, loss and deduction. The IRS may challenge these methodologies or the resulting allocations, which could adversely affect the value of our common units.
In determining the items of income, gain, loss and deduction allocable to our unitholders, we must routinely determine the fair market value of our assets. Although we may, from time, to time consult with professional appraisers regarding valuation matters, including the valuation of our assets, we make many fair market value estimates ourselves using a methodology based on the market value of our common units as a means to measure the fair market value of our assets. The IRS may challenge our valuation methods and the resulting allocations of income, gain, loss and deduction.
A successful IRS challenge to these methods or allocations could adversely affect the timing or amount of taxable income or loss being allocated to our unitholders. It also could affect the amount of gain from our unitholders’ sale of common units and could have a negative impact on the value of the common units or result in audit adjustments to our unitholders’ tax returns without the benefit of additional deductions.
The sale or exchange of 50% or more of our capital and profits interests during any twelve‑month period will result in the constructive termination of our partnership for federal income tax purposes.
We will be considered to have terminated as a partnership for federal income tax purposes if there is a sale or exchange of 50% or more of the total interests in our capital and profits within a twelve‑month period. For purposes of determining whether the 50% threshold has been met, multiple sales of the same interest will be counted only once. Our termination would, among other things, result in the closing of our taxable year for all unitholders, which would result in us filing two tax returns for one calendar year and could result in a significant deferral of depreciation deductions allowable in computing our taxable income. In the case of a unitholder reporting on a taxable year other than a calendar year, the closing of our taxable year may also result in more than twelve months of our taxable income or loss being includable in his taxable income for the year of termination. Our termination would not affect our classification as a partnership for federal income tax purposes but instead, we would be treated as a new partnership for federal income tax purposes. If we were treated as a new partnership, we would be required to make new tax elections and could be subject to penalties if we were unable to determine that a termination occurred. The IRS has announced a relief procedure whereby if a publicly traded partnership that has technically terminated requests and the IRS grants special relief, among other things, the partnership may be permitted to provide only a single Schedule K-1 to unitholders for the two short tax periods included in the year in which the termination occurs.
47
Unitholders may be subject to state and local taxes and return filing requirements in jurisdictions where they do not live as a result of investing in our common units.
In addition to federal income taxes, unitholders will likely be subject to other taxes, including state, local and non‑U.S. taxes, unincorporated business taxes and estate, inheritance or intangible taxes that are imposed by the various jurisdictions in which we conduct business or own property now or in the future, even if they do not live in any of those jurisdictions. Unitholders will likely be required to file state and local income tax returns and pay state and local income taxes in some or all of these various jurisdictions. Further, unitholders may be subject to penalties for failure to comply with those requirements. As of December 31, 2016, we owned assets and conducted business in several states, some of which impose a personal income tax as well as an income tax on corporations and other entities. As we make acquisitions or expand our business, we may own property or conduct business in other states or non‑U.S. countries in the future. It is the unitholder’s responsibility to file all U.S. federal, state, local and non‑U.S. tax returns.
Item 1B. Unresolved Staff Comments.
None.
General
Although we may, from time to time, be involved in litigation and claims arising out of our operations in the normal course of business, we do not believe that we are a party to any litigation that will have a material adverse impact on our financial condition or results of operations. Except as described below, we are not aware of any significant legal or governmental proceedings against us, or contemplated to be brought against us. We maintain insurance policies with insurers in amounts and with coverage and deductibles as our general partner believes are reasonable and prudent. However, we can provide no assurance that this insurance will be adequate to protect us from all material expenses related to potential future claims or that these levels of insurance will be available in the future at economically acceptable prices.
Environmental
In connection with the June 2015 acquisition of retail gasoline stations from Capitol Petroleum Group (“Capitol”), we assumed certain environmental liabilities, including future remediation activities required by applicable federal, state or local law or regulation at certain of the retail gasoline stations owned by Capitol. Certain environmental remediation obligations at most of the acquired retail gasoline station assets from Capitol are being funded by third parties who assumed certain liabilities in connection with Capitol’s acquisition of these assets from ExxonMobil in 2009 and 2010 and, therefore, cost estimates for such obligations at these stations are not included in this estimate of liability to us. As a result, we initially recorded, on an undiscounted basis, a total environmental liability of approximately $0.3 million for those locations not covered by third parties.
In connection with the January 2015 acquisition of the Revere terminal (the “Revere Terminal”) located in Boston Harbor in Revere, Massachusetts from Global Petroleum Corp. (“GPC”), we assumed certain environmental liabilities, including certain ongoing environmental remediation efforts. As a result, we initially recorded, on an undiscounted basis, a total environmental liability of approximately $3.1 million.
In connection with the January 2015 acquisition of Warren, we assumed certain environmental liabilities, including certain ongoing environmental remediation efforts at certain of the retail gasoline stations owned or leased by Warren and future remediation activities required by applicable federal, state or local law or regulation. As a result, we initially recorded, on an undiscounted basis, a total environmental liability of approximately $36.5 million.
In connection with the December 2012 acquisition of six New England retail gasoline stations from Mutual Oil Company, we assumed certain environmental liabilities, including certain ongoing remediation efforts. As a result, we initially recorded, on an undiscounted basis, a total environmental liability of approximately $0.6 million.
48
In connection with the March 2012 acquisition of Alliance Energy LLC (“Alliance”), we assumed Alliance’s environmental liabilities, including ongoing environmental remediation at certain of the retail gasoline stations owned by Alliance and future remediation activities required by applicable federal, state or local law or regulation. Remedial action plans are in place, as may be applicable with the state agencies regulating such ongoing remediation. Based on reports from environmental consultants, our estimated cost of the ongoing environmental remediation for which Alliance was responsible and future remediation activities required by applicable federal, state or local law or regulation is estimated to be approximately $16.1 million to be expended over an extended period of time. Certain environmental remediation obligations at the retail stations acquired by Alliance from ExxonMobil in 2011 are being funded by a third‑party who assumed the liability in connection with the Alliance/ExxonMobil transaction in 2011 and, therefore, cost estimates for such obligations at these stations are not included in this estimate. As a result, we initially recorded, on an undiscounted basis, total environmental liabilities of approximately $16.1 million.
In connection with the September 2010 acquisition of retail gasoline stations from ExxonMobil, we assumed certain environmental liabilities, including ongoing environmental remediation at and monitoring activities at certain of the acquired sites and future remediation activities required by applicable federal, state or local law or regulation. Remedial action plans are in place with the applicable state regulatory agencies for the majority of these locations, including plans for soil and groundwater treatment systems at certain sites. Based on consultations with environmental consultants, our estimated cost of the remediation is expected to be approximately $30.0 million to be expended over an extended period of time. As a result, we initially recorded, on an undiscounted basis, total environmental liabilities of approximately $30.0 million.
In connection with the June 2010 acquisition of three refined petroleum products terminals in Newburgh, New York, we assumed certain environmental liabilities, including certain ongoing remediation efforts. As a result, we initially recorded, on an undiscounted basis, a total environmental liability of approximately $1.5 million.
In addition to the above-mentioned environmental liabilities related to our retail gasoline stations, we retain some of the environmental obligations associated with certain gasoline stations that we have sold.
For additional information regarding our environmental liabilities, see Note 12 of Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements included elsewhere in this report.
Other
We determined that gasoline loaded from certain loading bays at one of our terminals did not contain the necessary additives as a result of an IT-related configuration error. The error was corrected and all gasoline being sold at the terminal now contains the appropriate additives. Based upon current information, we believe approximately 14 million gallons of gasoline were impacted. We have notified the EPA of this error. As a result of this error, we could be subject to fines, penalties and other related claims, including customer claims.
In February 2016, we received a request for information from the EPA seeking certain information regarding our Albany terminal in order to assess its compliance with the CAA. The information requested generally related to crude oil received by, stored at and shipped from our petroleum product transloading facility in Albany, New York (the “Albany Terminal”), including its composition, control devices for emissions and various permitting-related considerations. The Albany Terminal is a 63-acre licensed, permitted and operational stationary bulk petroleum storage and transfer terminal that currently consists of petroleum product storage tanks, along with truck, rail and marine loading facilities, for the storage, blending and distribution of various petroleum and related products, including gasoline, ethanol, distillates, heating and crude oils. No violations were alleged in the request for information. We submitted responses and documentation, in March and April 2016, to the EPA in accordance with the EPA request. On August 2, 2016, we received a Notice of Violation (“NOV”) from the EPA, alleging that permits for the Albany Terminal, issued by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (“NYSDEC”) between August 9, 2011 and November 7, 2012, violated the CAA and the federally enforceable New York State Implementation Plan (“SIP”) by increasing throughput of crude oil at the Albany Terminal without complying with the New Source Review (“NSR”) requirements of the SIP. The applicable permits issued by the NYSDEC to us in 2011 and 2012 specifically authorize us to increase the throughput of crude oil at the Albany Terminal. According to the allegations in the NOV, the NYSDEC
49
permits should have been regulated as a major modification under the NSR program, requiring additional emission control measures and compliance with other NSR requirements. The NYSDEC has not alleged that our permits were subject to the NSR program. The CAA authorizes the EPA to take enforcement action in response to violations of the New York SIP seeking compliance and penalties. We believe that the permits issued by the NYSDEC comply with the CAA and applicable State air permitting requirements and that no material violation of law has occurred. We dispute the claims alleged in the NOV and responded to the EPA in September, 2016. We have met with the EPA and provided additional information at the agency’s request. On December 16, 2016, the EPA proposed a Settlement Agreement in a letter to us relating to the allegations in the NOV. On January 17, 2017, we responded to the EPA indicating that the EPA had failed to explain or provide support for its allegations and that the EPA should better explain its positions and the evidence on which it was relying. To-date, the EPA has not responded to our response and has not taken any further action with respect to the NOV.
By letter dated October 5, 2015, we received a notice of intent to sue (“October NOI”), which supersedes and replaces a prior notice of intent to sue that we received on September 1, 2015 (the “September NOI”) from Earthjustice, an environmental advocacy organization on behalf of the County of Albany, New York, a public housing development owned and operated by the Albany Housing Authority and certain environmental organizations, related to alleged violations of the CAA, particularly with respect to crude oil operations at the Albany Terminal. The October NOI revises the superseded and replaced September NOI to add two additional environmental advocacy organizations and to revise the relief sought and the description of the alleged CAA violations.
On February 3, 2016, Earthjustice and the other entities identified in the October NOI filed suit against us in federal court in Albany under the citizen suit provisions of the CAA. In summary, this lawsuit alleges that certain of our operations at the Albany Terminal are in violation of the CAA. The plaintiffs seek, among other things, relief that would compel us both to apply for what the plaintiffs contend is the applicable permit under the CAA, and to install additional pollution controls. In addition, the plaintiffs seek to prohibit the Albany Terminal from receiving, storing, handling, and marine loading certain types of Bakken crude oil and to require payment of a civil penalty of $37,500 for each day we operated the Albany Terminal in violation of the CAA. We believe that we have meritorious defenses against all allegations. On February 26, 2016, we filed a motion to dismiss the CAA action. No decision has yet been issued by the Court and all discovery and other litigation activity is stayed pending a decision by the Court on the motion to dismiss.
By letter dated January 25, 2017, we received a notice of intent to sue (the “2017 NOI”) from Earthjustice related to alleged violations of the CAA; specifically alleging that we were operating the Albany Terminal without a valid CAA Title V Permit. On February 9, 2017, we responded to Earthjustice advising that the 2017 NOI was without factual or legal merit and that we would move to dismiss any action commenced by Earthjustice. At this time, there has been no further action taken by Earthjustice. Neither the EPA nor the NYSDEC has followed up on the NOI. The Albany Terminal is currently operating pursuant to its Title V Permit. We believe that we have meritorious defenses against all allegations.
On May 29, 2015 and in connection with a commercial dispute with Tethys Trading Company LLC (“Tethys”), we received a notice from Tethys alleging a default under, and purporting to terminate, our contract with Tethys for crude oil services at our Oregon facility. However, we do not believe Tethys had the right to terminate the contract, and we will continue to investigate and determine the appropriate action to take to enforce our rights under the agreement.
On March 26, 2015, we received a Notice of Non-Compliance (“NON”) from the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (“DEP”) with respect to the Revere Terminal, alleging certain violations of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit (“NPDES Permit”) related to storm water discharges. The NON required us to submit a plan to remedy the reported violations of the NPDES Permit. We have responded to the NON with a plan and have implemented modifications to the storm water management system at the Revere Terminal in accordance with the plan. We have requested that the DEP acknowledge completion of the required modifications to the storm water management system in satisfaction of the NON. While no response has yet been received, we believe that compliance with the NON has been achieved, and implementation of the plan will have no material impact on our operations.
We had a dispute with Lansing Ethanol Services, LLC (“Lansing”) for damages in excess of $12.0 million. The dispute involved Lansing’s failure to transfer RINs to us in connection with certain agreements for the purchase and sale
50
of ethanol. The parties had agreed to arbitrate under the rules of the American Arbitration Association. We filed for arbitration on March 24, 2015 and the hearing was conducted in March 2016. A decision was rendered on June 10, 2016, which netted us $1.5 million. Neither party appealed the decision and the appeal period expired on July 14, 2016. The parties executed a Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release on August 2, 2016, and payment was made by Lansing and received by us on that date.
On May 16, 2014, we received a subpoena from the SEC requesting information for relevant time periods primarily relating to our accounting for RINs and the restatement of our consolidated financial statements as of and for the quarters ended March 31, 2013, June 30, 2013 and September 30, 2013. We have cooperated fully with the SEC and believe we have provided the SEC with all requested materials. On October 26, 2016, we were informed that the SEC has concluded its investigation and does not intend to recommend that an enforcement action by the SEC be taken against us.
We received letters from the EPA dated November 2, 2011 and March 29, 2012, containing requirements and testing orders (collectively, the “Requests for Information”) for information under the CAA. The Requests for Information were part of an EPA investigation to determine whether we have violated sections of the CAA at certain of our terminal locations in New England with respect to residual oil and asphalt. On June 6, 2014, a NOV was received from the EPA, alleging certain violations of its Air Emissions License issued by the Maine Department of Environmental Protection, based upon the test results at the South Portland, Maine terminal. We met with and provided additional information to the EPA with respect to the alleged violations. On April 7, 2015, the EPA issued a Supplemental Notice of Violation (the “Supplemental NOV”) modifying the allegations of violations of the terminal’s Air Emissions License. We have responded to the Supplemental NOV and engaged in further negotiations with the EPA. A tolling agreement was executed with the United States on December 1, 2015, which has currently been extended through March 31, 2017. While we do not believe that a material violation has occurred, and we contest the allegations presented in the NOV and Supplemental NOV, we do not believe any adverse determination in connection with the NOV would have a material impact on our operations.
Item 4. Mine Safety Disclosures
Not applicable.
51
Item 5. Market for Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities.
Our common units trade on the New York Stock Exchange (“NYSE”) under the symbol “GLP.” The closing sale price per common unit on March 7, 2017 was $18.50. At the close of business on March 7, 2017, based upon information received from our transfer agent and brokers and nominees, we had 10,967 common unitholders, including beneficial owners of common units held in street name. The following table sets forth the range of the daily high and low sales prices per common unit as quoted on the NYSE and the cash distributions per common unit for the periods indicated.
|
|
Price Range |
|
Cash Distribution |
|
|||||
|
|
High |
|
Low |
|
Per Common Unit (a) |
|
|||
2016 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fourth Quarter |
|
$ |
19.95 |
|
$ |
14.85 |
|
$ |
0.4625 |
|
Third Quarter |
|
|
17.00 |
|
|
12.82 |
|
|
0.4625 |
|
Second Quarter |
|
|
14.23 |
|
|
12.28 |
|
|
0.4625 |
|
First Quarter |
|
|
19.82 |
|
|
12.55 |
|
|
0.4625 |
|
2015 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fourth Quarter |
|
$ |
35.00 |
|
$ |
14.80 |
|
$ |
0.4625 |
|
Third Quarter |
|
|
35.67 |
|
|
26.55 |
|
|
0.6975 |
|
Second Quarter |
|
|
42.74 |
|
|
32.01 |
|
|
0.6925 |
|
First Quarter |
|
|
40.37 |
|
|
32.68 |
|
|
0.6800 |
|
(a) |
Represents cash distributions attributable to the quarter. Cash distributions declared in respect of a calendar quarter are paid in the following calendar quarter. |
We intend to make cash distributions to unitholders on a quarterly basis, although there is no assurance as to the future cash distributions since they are dependent upon future earnings, capital requirements, financial condition and other factors. Our credit agreement prohibits us from making cash distributions if any potential default or event of default, as defined in the credit agreement, occurs or would result from the cash distribution. The indentures governing our outstanding senior notes also limit our ability to make distributions to our unitholders in certain circumstances.
Within 45 days after the end of each quarter, we will distribute all of our Available Cash (as defined in our partnership agreement) to unitholders of record on the applicable record date. The amount of Available Cash is all cash on hand on the date of determination of Available Cash for the quarter, less the amount of cash reserves established by our general partner to provide for the proper conduct of our business, to comply with applicable law, any of our debt instruments or other agreements, or to provide funds for distributions to unitholders and our general partner for any one or more of the next four quarters.
We will make distributions of Available Cash from distributable cash flow for any quarter in the following manner: 99.33% to the common unitholders, pro rata, and 0.67% to the general partner, until we distribute for each outstanding common unit an amount equal to the minimum quarterly distribution for that quarter; and thereafter, cash in excess of the minimum quarterly distribution is distributed to the unitholders and the general partner based on the percentages as provided below.
52
As holder of the incentive distribution rights, the general partner is entitled to incentive distributions if the amount we distribute with respect to any quarter exceeds specified target levels shown below:
|
|
|
|
Marginal Percentage |
|
||
|
|
Total Quarterly Distribution |
|
Interest in Distributions |
|
||
|
|
Target Amount |
|
Unitholders |
|
General Partner |
|
First Target Distribution |
|
up to $0.4625 |
|
99.33 |
% |
0.67 |
% |
Second Target Distribution |
|
above $0.4625 up to $0.5375 |
|
86.33 |
% |
13.67 |
% |
Third Target Distribution |
|
above $0.5375 up to $0.6625 |
|
76.33 |
% |
23.67 |
% |
Thereafter |
|
above $0.6625 |
|
51.33 |
% |
48.67 |
% |
The equity compensation plan information required by Item 201(d) of Regulation S‑K in response to this item is incorporated by reference from Item 12, “Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Stockholder Matters—Equity Compensation Plan Table.”
Recent Sales of Unregistered Securities
None.
Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities
We did not repurchase any of our common units during the quarter ended December 31, 2016.
Item 6. Selected Financial Data.
The following table presents selected historical financial and operating data of Global Partners LP for the years and as of the dates indicated. The selected historical financial data is derived from the historical consolidated financial statements of Global Partners LP.
This table should be read in conjunction with Item 7, “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” and the historical consolidated financial statements of Global Partners LP and the notes thereto included elsewhere in this report. In addition, this table presents non‑GAAP financial measures which we use in our business. These measures are not calculated or presented in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles in the United States (“GAAP”). We explain these measures and present reconciliations to the most directly
53
comparable financial measures calculated in accordance with GAAP in Item 7, “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations—Results of Operations—Key Performance Indicators.”
|
|
Year Ended December 31, |
|
|||||||||||||
|
|
2016 |
|
2015 |
|
2014 |
|
2013 |
|
2012 |
|
|||||
|
|
(dollars in millions except per unit amounts) |
|
|||||||||||||
Statement of Income Data: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sales |
|
$ |
8,239.6 |
|
$ |
10,314.9 |
|
$ |
17,269.9 |
|
$ |
19,589.6 |
|
$ |
17,626.0 |
|
Cost of sales |
|
|
7,693.1 |
|
|
9,717.2 |
|
|
16,725.1 |
|
|
19,185.1 |
|
|
17,291.9 |
|
Gross profit |
|
|
546.5 |
|
|
597.7 |
|
|
544.8 |
|
|
404.5 |
|
|
334.1 |
|
Selling, general and administrative expenses |
|
|
149.7 |
|
|
177.0 |
|
|
154.0 |
|
|
115.5 |
|
|
95.7 |
|
Operating expenses |
|
|
288.5 |
|
|
290.3 |
|
|
204.1 |
|
|
185.7 |
|
|
140.4 |
|
Lease exit and termination expenses |
|
|
80.7 |
|
|
— |
|
|
— |
|
|
— |
|
|
— |
|
Amortization expense |
|
|
9.4 |
|
|
13.5 |
|
|
18.9 |
|
|
19.2 |
|
|
7.0 |
|
Loss (gain) on sale and disposition of assets |
|
|
20.5 |
|
|
2.1 |
|
|
2.2 |
|
|
(1.3) |
|
|
0.6 |
|
Goodwill and long-lived asset impairment |
|
|
149.9 |
|
|
— |
|
|
— |
|
|
— |
|
|
— |
|
Total operating costs and expenses |
|
|
698.7 |
|
|
482.9 |
|
|
379.2 |
|
|
319.1 |
|
|
243.7 |
|
Operating (loss) income |
|
|
(152.2) |
|
|
114.7 |
|
|
165.6 |
|
|
85.4 |
|
|
90.3 |
|
Interest expense |
|
|
(86.3) |
|
|
(73.3) |
|
|
(47.7) |
|
|
(43.5) |
|
|
(42.0) |
|
(Loss) income before income tax expense |
|
|
(238.5) |
|
|
41.4 |
|
|
117.9 |
|
|
41.9 |
|
|
48.3 |
|
Income tax (expense) benefit |
|
|
(0.1) |
|
|
1.9 |
|
|
(0.9) |
|
|
(0.9) |
|
|
(1.6) |
|
Net (loss) income |
|
|
(238.6) |
|
|
43.3 |
|
|
117.0 |
|
|
41.0 |
|
|
46.7 |
|
Net loss (income) attributable to noncontrolling interest (1) |
|
|
39.2 |
|
|
0.3 |
|
|
(2.3) |
|
|
1.6 |
|
|
— |
|
Net (loss) income attributable to Global Partners LP |
|
|
(199.4) |
|
|
43.6 |
|
|
114.7 |
|
|
42.6 |
|
|
46.7 |
|
Less: General partners’ interest in net (loss) income |
|
|
(1.3) |
|
|
7.7 |
|
|
6.0 |
|
|
3.5 |
|
|
1.2 |
|
Limited partners’ interest in net (loss) income |
|
$ |
(198.1) |
|
$ |
35.9 |
|
$ |
108.7 |
|
$ |
39.1 |
|
$ |
45.5 |
|
Per Unit Data |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic net (loss) income per limited partner unit (2) |
|
$ |
(5.91) |
|
$ |
1.12 |
|
$ |
3.97 |
|
$ |
1.43 |
|
$ |
1.73 |
|
Diluted net (loss) income per limited partner unit (2) |
|
$ |
(5.91) |
|
$ |
1.11 |
|
$ |
3.95 |
|
$ |
1.42 |
|
$ |
1.71 |
|
Cash distributions per limited partner unit (3) |
|
$ |
1.85 |
|
$ |
2.74 |
|
$ |
2.53 |
|
$ |
2.34 |
|
$ |
2.06 |
|
Cash Flow Data: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash (used in) provided by |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating activities |
|
$ |
(119.9) |
|
$ |
62.5 |
|
$ |
344.9 |
|
$ |
255.1 |
|
$ |
232.4 |
|
Investment activities |
|
$ |
6.4 |
|
$ |
(649.7) |
|
$ |
(91.1) |
|
$ |
(243.2) |
|
$ |
(226.5) |
|
Financing activities |
|
$ |
122.4 |
|
$ |
583.1 |
|
$ |
(257.8) |
|
$ |
(8.7) |
|
$ |
(4.3) |
|
Other Financial Data: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EBITDA (4) |
|
$ |
(4.9) |
|
$ |
225.7 |
|
$ |
242.3 |
|
$ |
157.4 |
|
$ |
135.8 |
|
Adjusted EBITDA (4) |
|
$ |
129.7 |
|
$ |
227.8 |
|
$ |
244.5 |
|
$ |
156.1 |
|
$ |
136.4 |
|
Distributable cash flow (5) |
|
$ |
(121.4) |
|
$ |
126.9 |
|
$ |
161.2 |
|
$ |
105.2 |
|
$ |
80.8 |
|
Capital expenditures—acquisitions (6) |
|
$ |
— |
|
$ |
561.2 |
|
$ |
— |
|
$ |
185.3 |
|
$ |
188.7 |
|
Capital expenditures—maintenance and expansion (6) |
|
$ |
71.3 |
|
$ |
92.9 |
|
$ |
95.1 |
|
$ |
67.1 |
|
$ |
44.9 |
|
Operating Data: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Normal heating degree days (7) |
|
|
5,661 |
|
|
5,630 |
|
|
5,630 |
|
|
5,630 |
|
|
5,661 |
|
Actual heating degree days |
|
|
5,177 |
|
|
5,651 |
|
|
5,664 |
|
|
5,521 |
|
|
4,754 |
|
Variance from normal heating degree days |
|
|
(9) |
% |
|
0.37 |
% |
|
1 |
% |
|
(2) |
% |
|
(16) |
% |
Variance from prior year actual degree days |
|
|
(8) |
% |
|
(0.23) |
% |
|
3 |
% |
|
16 |
% |
|
(7) |
% |
Total gallons sold (in millions) |
|
|
5,133 |
|
|
5,648 |
|
|
6,356 |
|
|
6,956 |
|
|
6,100 |
|
Variance in volume sold from prior year |
|
|
(9) |
% |
|
(11) |
% |
|
(9) |
% |
|
14 |
% |
|
17 |
% |
Balance Sheet Data (at period end): |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total assets |
|
$ |
2,564.0 |
|
$ |
2,663.7 |
|
$ |
2,030.8 |
|
$ |
2,425.9 |
|
$ |
2,329.8 |
|
Long—term debt |
|
$ |
1,025.9 |
|
$ |
1,075.6 |
|
$ |
593.9 |
|
$ |
910.0 |
|
$ |
762.8 |
|
Total debt |
|
$ |
1,300.5 |
|
$ |
1,173.7 |
|
$ |
594.6 |
|
$ |
913.7 |
|
$ |
846.5 |
|
Total liabilities |
|
$ |
2,166.2 |
|
$ |
1,969.7 |
|
$ |
1,394.7 |
|
$ |
1,962.7 |
|
$ |
1,893.3 |
|
Partners’ equity |
|
$ |
397.8 |
|
$ |
694.0 |
|
$ |
636.1 |
|
$ |
463.2 |
|
$ |
436.5 |
|
The above table reflects certain rounding conventions.
(1) |
On February 1, 2013, we acquired a 60% membership interest in Basin Transload, LLC (“Basin Transload”). The net income (loss) in the table above is attributable to the noncontrolling interest which represents Basin Transload’s 40% interest. |
(2) |
See Note 2 of Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements included elsewhere in this report for net income per limited partner unit calculation. |
54
(3) |
Cash distributions declared in one calendar quarter are paid in the following calendar quarter. This amount is based on cash distributions paid during each respective year. See Note 16 of Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements included elsewhere in this report. |
(4) |
Earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization (“EBITDA”) and Adjusted EBITDA, which is EBITDA further adjusted for the gain or loss on the sale and disposition of assets and goodwill and long-lived asset impairment, are non‑GAAP financial measures which are discussed under “Results of Operations—Evaluating Our Results of Operations” and reconciled to the most directly comparable GAAP financial measures under “Results of Operations—Key Performance Indicators” in Item 7, “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations.” In 2016, Adjusted EBITDA includes lease exit and termination expenses of $80.7 million which were recorded as a result of our December 2016 voluntary early termination of a sublease for 1,610 railcars (see Note 2 of Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements). Excluding these expenses, Adjusted EBITDA would have been $210.4 million. |
(5) |
Distributable cash flow (“DCF”) is a non‑GAAP financial measure which is discussed under “Results of Operations—Evaluating Our Results of Operations” and reconciled to its most directly comparable GAAP financial measures under “Results of Operations—Key Performance Indicators” in Item 7, “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations.” As defined by our partnership agreement, DCF is not adjusted for the loss on sale and disposition of assets and goodwill and long-lived asset impairment. In 2016, DCF includes a net loss on sale and disposition of assets of $20.5 million, a net goodwill and long-lived asset impairment of $114.1 million ($149.9 million attributed to us, offset by $35.8 million attributed to the noncontrolling interest) and lease exit and termination expenses of $80.7 million (see Note 2 of Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements for additional information on the impairment charges and lease termination). Excluding these charges, DCF would have been $93.9 million in 2016. |
(6) |
Capital expenditures are discussed under “Liquidity and Capital Resources” in Item 7, “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations.” |
(7) |
Degree days is an industry measurement of temperature designed to evaluate energy demand and consumption which is further discussed under “Results of Operations—Evaluating Our Results of Operations” in Item 7, “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations.” |
55
Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations.
The following discussion and analysis of financial condition and results of operations of Global Partners LP should be read in conjunction with the historical consolidated financial statements of Global Partners LP and the notes thereto included elsewhere in this report.
Overview
General
We are a midstream logistics and marketing company engaged in the purchasing, selling, storing and logistics of transporting petroleum and related products, including gasoline and gasoline blendstocks (such as ethanol), distillates (such as home heating oil, diesel and kerosene), residual oil, renewable fuels, crude oil, natural gas and propane. We own, control or have access to one of the largest terminal networks of refined petroleum products and renewable fuels in the Northeast (the “Northeast”). We are one of the largest distributors of gasoline, distillates, residual oil and renewable fuels to wholesalers, retailers and commercial customers in the New England states and New York. We are also one of the largest independent owners, suppliers and operators of gasoline stations and convenience stores in these areas. As of December 31, 2016, we had a portfolio of 1,458 owned, leased and/or supplied gasoline stations, including 248 directly operated convenience stores, in the Northeast, Maryland and Virginia. We also receive revenue from convenience store sales and gasoline station rental income. In addition, we own transload and storage terminals in North Dakota and Oregon that extend our origin‑to‑destination capabilities from the mid‑continent region of the United States and Canada.
Collectively, we sold approximately $7.8 billion of refined petroleum products, renewable fuels, crude oil, natural gas and propane for the year ended December 31, 2016. In addition, we had other revenues of approximately $0.4 billion, primarily from convenience store sales at our directly operated stores and rental income from dealer leased or commissioned agent leased gasoline stations and from cobranding arrangements.
We base our pricing on spot prices, fixed prices or indexed prices and routinely use the NYMEX, CME, ICE or other counterparties to hedge the risk inherent in buying and selling commodities. Through the use of regulated exchanges or derivatives, we seek to maintain a position that is substantially balanced between purchased volumes and sales volumes or future delivery obligations.
Operating Segments
We purchase refined petroleum products, renewable fuels, crude oil, natural gas and propane primarily from domestic and foreign refiners and ethanol producers, crude oil producers, major and independent oil companies and trading companies. We operate our business under three segments: (i) Wholesale, (ii) Gasoline Distribution and Station Operations (“GDSO”) and (iii) Commercial.
Wholesale
In our Wholesale segment, we engage in the logistics of selling, gathering, storage and transportation of refined petroleum products, renewable fuels, crude oil and propane. We transport these products by railcars, barges and/or pipelines pursuant to spot or long-term contracts. We aggregate crude oil by truck or pipeline in the mid-continent region of the United States and Canada, transport it by rail and ship it by barge to refiners. We sell home heating oil, branded and unbranded gasoline and gasoline blendstocks, diesel, kerosene, residual oil and propane to home heating oil and propane retailers and wholesale distributors. Generally, customers use their own vehicles or contract carriers to take delivery of the gasoline and distillates at bulk terminals and inland storage facilities that we own or control or at which we have throughput or exchange arrangements. Ethanol is shipped primarily by rail and by barge.
In our Wholesale segment, we obtain Renewable Identification Numbers (“RINs”) in connection with our purchase of ethanol which is used for bulk trading purposes or for blending with gasoline through our terminal system. A RIN is a renewable identification number associated with government‑mandated renewable fuel standards. To evidence that the required volume of renewable fuel is blended with gasoline, obligated parties must retire sufficient RINs to cover
56
their Renewable Volume Obligation (“RVO”). Our EPA obligations relative to renewable fuel reporting are largely limited to the foreign gasoline and diesel that we may import.
Gasoline Distribution and Station Operations
In our GDSO segment, gasoline distribution includes sales of branded and unbranded gasoline to gasoline station operators and sub-jobbers. Station operations include (i) convenience stores, (ii) rental income from gasoline stations leased to dealers, from commissioned agents and from cobranding arrangements and (iii) sundries (such as car wash sales, lottery and ATM commissions).
As of December 31, 2016, we had a portfolio of owned, leased and/or supplied gasoline stations, primarily in the Northeast, that consisted of the following:
Company operated |
|
248 |
|
Commissioned agents |
|
281 |
|
Lessee dealers |
|
246 |
|
Contract dealers |
|
683 |
|
Total |
|
1,458 |
|
At our company‑operated stores, we operate the gasoline stations and convenience stores with our employees, and we set the retail price of gasoline at the station. At commissioned agent locations, we own the gasoline inventory, and we set the retail price of gasoline at the station and pay the commissioned agent a fee related to the gallons sold. We receive rental income from commissioned agent leased gasoline stations for the leasing of the convenience store premises, repair bays and other businesses that may be conducted by the commissioned agent. At dealer‑leased locations, the dealer purchases gasoline from us, and the dealer sets the retail price of gasoline at the dealer’s station. We also receive rental income from (i) dealer‑leased gasoline stations and (ii) cobranding arrangements. We also supply gasoline to locations owned and/or leased by independent contract dealers. Additionally, we have contractual relationships with distributors in certain New England states, pursuant to which we source and supply these distributors’ gasoline stations with ExxonMobil‑branded gasoline.
Commercial
In our Commercial segment, we include sales and deliveries to end user customers in the public sector and to large commercial and industrial end users of unbranded gasoline, home heating oil, diesel, kerosene, residual oil, bunker fuel and natural gas. In the case of public sector commercial and industrial end user customers, we sell products primarily either through a competitive bidding process or through contracts of various terms. We generally arrange for the delivery of the product to the customer’s designated location, and we respond to publicly‑issued requests for product proposals and quotes. Our Commercial segment also includes sales of custom blended fuels delivered by barges or from a terminal dock to ships through bunkering activity.
Seasonality
Due to the nature of our business and our reliance, in part, on consumer travel and spending patterns, we may experience more demand for gasoline during the late spring and summer months than during the fall and winter. Travel and recreational activities are typically higher in these months in the geographic areas in which we operate, increasing the demand for gasoline. Therefore, our volumes in gasoline are typically higher in the second and third quarters of the calendar year. As demand for some of our refined petroleum products, specifically home heating oil and residual oil for space heating purposes, is generally greater during the winter months, heating oil and residual oil volumes are generally higher during the first and fourth quarters of the calendar year. These factors may result in fluctuations in our quarterly operating results.
57
Outlook
This section identifies certain risks and certain economic or industry‑wide factors that may affect our financial performance and results of operations in the future, both in the short‑term and in the long‑term. Our results of operations and financial condition depend, in part, upon the following:
· |
Our business is influenced by the overall markets for refined petroleum products, renewable fuels, crude oil and propane and increases and/or decreases in the prices of these products may adversely impact our financial condition, results of operations and cash available for distribution to our unitholders and the amount of borrowing available for working capital under our credit agreement Results from our purchasing, storing, terminalling, transporting and selling operations are influenced by prices for refined petroleum products, renewable fuels, crude oil and propane, price volatility and the market for such products. Prices in the overall markets for these products may affect our financial condition, results of operations and cash available for distribution to our unitholders. Our margins can be significantly impacted by the forward product pricing curve, often referred to as the futures market. We typically hedge our exposure to petroleum product and renewable fuel price moves with futures contracts and, to a lesser extent, swaps. In markets where future prices are higher than current prices, referred to as contango, we may use our storage capacity to improve our margins by storing products we have purchased at lower prices in the current market for delivery to customers at higher prices in the future. In markets where future prices are lower than current prices, referred to as backwardation, inventories can depreciate in value and hedging costs are more expensive. For this reason, in these backward markets, we attempt to reduce our inventories in order to minimize these effects. When prices for the products we sell rise, some of our customers may have insufficient credit to purchase supply from us at their historical purchase volumes, and their customers, in turn, may adopt conservation measures which reduce consumption, thereby reducing demand for product. Furthermore, when prices increase rapidly and dramatically, we may be unable to promptly pass our additional costs on to our customers, resulting in lower margins which could adversely affect our results of operations. Higher prices for the products we sell may (1) diminish our access to trade credit support and/or cause it to become more expensive and (2) decrease the amount of borrowings available for working capital under our credit agreement as a result of total available commitments, borrowing base limitations and advance rates thereunder. When prices for the products we sell decline, our exposure to risk of loss in the event of nonperformance by our customers of our forward contracts may be increased as they and/or their customers may breach their contracts and purchase the products we sell at the then lower market price from a competitor. A significant decrease in the price for crude oil has adversely affected the economics of domestic crude oil production which, in turn, has had an adverse effect on our crude oil logistics activities and sales. A significant decrease in crude oil differentials has also had an adverse effect on our crude oil logistics activities and sales. In addition, the prolonged decline in crude oil prices and crude oil differentials has indicated an impairment of our long-lived assets used at our terminals in North Dakota. As a result of these events, we recognized a goodwill and long-lived asset impairment of $149.9 million for year ended December 31, 2016. |
· |
With respect to each of the quarters in 2016, we announced a quarterly distribution of $0.4625 per unit. On January 28, 2016, we announced a reduction in the quarterly distribution for the fourth quarter of 2015 on all outstanding common units to $0.4625. This distribution represented a decrease of 33.7% from the distribution of $0.6975 per unit paid in November 2015 and a decrease of 30.5% from the distribution of $0.6650 per unit paid in February 2015. That reduction in the distribution primarily reflected the continuing weakness in the crude oil market. The significant decline in the price of crude oil and tight crude oil differentials negatively impacted our fiscal 2015 and 2016 results. |
· |
We commit substantial resources to pursuing acquisitions, and expending capital for growth projects, although there is no certainty that we will successfully complete any acquisitions or growth projects or receive the economic results we anticipate from completed acquisitions or growth projects. We are continuously engaged in discussions with potential sellers and lessors of existing (or suitable for development) terminalling, storage, logistics and/or marketing assets, including gasoline stations, and related businesses. Our growth largely depends on our ability to make accretive acquisitions and/or |
58
accretive development projects. We may be unable to execute such accretive transactions for a number of reasons, including the following: (1) we are unable to identify attractive transaction candidates or negotiate acceptable terms; (2) we are unable to obtain financing for such transactions on economically acceptable terms; or (3) we are outbid by competitors. In addition, we may consummate transactions that at the time of consummation we believe will be accretive but that ultimately may not be accretive. If any of these events were to occur, our future growth and ability to increase or maintain distributions could be limited. We can give no assurance that our transaction efforts will be successful or that any such efforts will be completed on terms that are favorable to us. |
· |
The condition of credit markets may adversely affect our liquidity. In the past, world financial markets experienced a severe reduction in the availability of credit. Possible negative impacts in the future could include a decrease in the availability of borrowings under our credit agreement, increased counterparty credit risk on our derivatives contracts and our contractual counterparties requiring us to provide collateral. In addition, we could experience a tightening of trade credit from our suppliers. |
· |
We depend upon marine, pipeline, rail and truck transportation services for a substantial portion of our logistics business in transporting the products we sell. A disruption in these transportation services could have an adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations and cash available for distribution to our unitholders. Hurricanes, flooding and other severe weather conditions could cause a disruption in the transportation services we depend upon which could affect the flow of service. In addition, accidents, labor disputes between providers and their employees and labor renegotiations, including strikes, lockouts or a work stoppage, shortage of railcars, mechanical difficulties or bottlenecks and disruptions in transportation logistics could also disrupt our businesses. These events could result in service disruptions and increased cost which could also adversely affect our financial condition, results of operations and cash available for distribution to our unitholders. Other disruptions, such as those due to an act of terrorism or war, could also adversely affect our business. |
· |
We have contractual obligations for certain transportation assets such as railcars, barges and pipelines. A decline in demand for (i) the products we sell, including crude oil and ethanol, or (ii) our logistics activities, could result in a decrease in the utilization of our transportation assets, which could negatively impact our financial condition, results of operations and cash available for distribution to our unitholders. For example, during 2015 and 2016, we experienced adverse market conditions in crude oil caused by an over-supplied crude oil market which resulted in tighter price differentials, and we experienced a reduction in our railcar movements but remained obligated to pay the applicable fixed charges for railcar leases. |
· |
Our gasoline financial results are seasonal and can be lower in the first and fourth quarters of the calendar year. Due to the nature of our business and our reliance, in part, on consumer travel and spending patterns, we may experience more demand for gasoline during the late spring and summer months than during the fall and winter. Travel and recreational activities are typically higher in these months in the geographic areas in which we operate, increasing the demand for gasoline that we distribute. Therefore, our results of operations in gasoline can be lower in the first and fourth quarters of the calendar year. |
· |
Our heating oil and residual oil financial results are seasonal and can be lower in the second and third quarters of the calendar year. Demand for some refined petroleum products, specifically home heating oil and residual oil for space heating purposes, is generally higher during November through March than during April through October. We obtain a significant portion of these sales during the winter months. Therefore, our results of operations in heating oil and residual oil for the first and fourth calendar quarters can be better than for the second and third quarters. |
· |
Warmer weather conditions could adversely affect our results of operations and financial condition. Weather conditions generally have an impact on the demand for both home heating oil and residual oil. Because we supply distributors whose customers depend on home heating oil and residual oil for space heating purposes during the winter, warmer‑than‑normal temperatures during the first and fourth calendar quarters in the Northeast can decrease the total volume we sell and the gross profit realized on those sales. |
59
· |
Energy efficiency, higher prices, new technology and alternative fuels could reduce demand for our products. Increased conservation and technological advances have adversely affected the demand for home heating oil and residual oil. Consumption of residual oil has steadily declined over the last three decades. We could face additional competition from alternative energy sources as a result of future government‑mandated controls or regulation further promoting the use of cleaner fuels. End users who are dual‑fuel users have the ability to switch between residual oil and natural gas. Other end users may elect to convert to natural gas. During a period of increasing residual oil prices relative to the prices of natural gas, dual‑fuel customers may switch and other end users may convert to natural gas. During periods of increasing home heating oil prices relative to the price of natural gas, residential users of home heating oil may also convert to natural gas. Such switching or conversion could have an adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations and cash available for distribution to our unitholders. In addition, higher prices and new technologies and alternative fuel sources, such as electric, hybrid or battery powered motor vehicles, could reduce the demand for gasoline and adversely impact our gasoline sales. A reduction in gasoline sales could have an adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations and cash available for distribution to our unitholders. |
· |
Changes in government usage mandates and tax credits could adversely affect the availability and pricing of ethanol, which could negatively impact our sales. The EPA has implemented a RFS pursuant to the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. The RFS program sets annual quotas for the quantity of renewable fuels (such as ethanol) that must be blended into transportation fuels consumed in the United States. A RIN is assigned to each gallon of renewable fuel produced in or imported into the United States. We are exposed to the volatility in the market price of RINs. We cannot predict the future prices of RINs. RIN prices are dependent upon a variety of factors, including EPA regulations, the availability of RINs for purchase, the price at which RINs can be purchased, and levels of transportation fuels produced, all of which can vary significantly from quarter to quarter. If sufficient RINs are unavailable for purchase or if we have to pay a significantly higher price for RINs, or if we are otherwise unable to meet the EPA’s RFS mandates, our results of operations and cash flows could be adversely affected. Future demand for ethanol will be largely dependent upon the economic incentives to blend based upon the relative value of gasoline and ethanol, taking into consideration the EPA’s regulations on the RFS program and oxygenate blending requirements. A reduction or waiver of the RFS mandate or oxygenate blending requirements could adversely affect the availability and pricing of ethanol, which in turn could adversely affect our future gasoline and ethanol sales. In addition, changes in blending requirements could affect the price of RINs which could impact the magnitude of the mark‑ to‑market liability recorded for the deficiency, if any, in our RIN position relative to our RVO at a point in time. |
· |
We may not be able to fully implement or capitalize upon planned growth projects. We could have a number of organic growth projects that may require the expenditure of significant amounts of capital in the aggregate. Many of these projects involve numerous regulatory, environmental, commercial and legal uncertainties beyond our control. As these projects are undertaken, required approvals, permits and licenses may not be obtained, may be delayed or may be obtained with conditions that materially alter the expected return associated with the underlying projects. Moreover, revenues associated with these organic growth projects would not increase immediately upon the expenditures of funds with respect to a particular project and these projects may be completed behind schedule or in excess of budgeted cost. We may pursue and complete projects in anticipation of market demand that dissipates or market growth that never materializes. As a result of these uncertainties, the anticipated benefits associated with our capital projects may not be achieved. |
· |
New, stricter environmental laws and other industry-related regulations or environmental litigation could significantly impact our operations and/or increase our costs, which could adversely affect our results of operations and financial condition. Our operations are subject to federal, state and local laws and regulations regulating, among other matters, logistics activities, product quality specifications and other environmental matters. The trend in environmental regulation has been towards more restrictions and limitations on activities that may affect the environment over time. Our business may be adversely affected by increased costs and liabilities resulting from such stricter laws and regulations. We try to anticipate |
60
future regulatory requirements that might be imposed and plan accordingly to remain in compliance with changing environmental laws and regulations and to minimize the costs of such compliance. Risks related to our environmental permits, including the risk of noncompliance, permit interpretation, permit modification, renewal of permits on less favorable terms, judicial or administrative challenges to permits by citizens groups or federal, state or local entities or permit revocation are inherent in the operation of our business, as it is with other companies engaged in similar businesses. We may not be able to renew the permits necessary for our operations, or we may be forced to accept terms in future permits that limit our operations or result in additional compliance costs. In recent years, the transport of crude oil and ethanol has become subject to additional regulation. The establishment of more stringent design or construction, or other requirements for railroad tank cars that are used to transport crude oil and ethanol with too short of a timeframe for compliance may lead to shortages of compliant railcars available to transport crude oil and ethanol, which could adversely affect our business. Likewise, in recent years, efforts have commenced to seek to use federal, state and local laws to contest issuance of permits, contest renewal of permits and restrict the types of railroad tanks cars that can be used to deliver crude oil and ethanol to bulk storage terminals. Were such laws to come into effect and were they to survive appeals and judicial review, they would potentially expose our operations to duplicative and possibly inconsistent regulation. There can be no assurances as to the timing and type of such changes in existing laws or the promulgation of new laws or the amount of any required expenditures associated therewith. Climate change continues to attract considerable public and scientific attention. In recent years environmental interest groups have filed suit against companies in the energy industry related to climate change. Should such suits succeed, we could face additional compliance costs or litigation risks. |
Results of Operations
Evaluating Our Results of Operations
Our management uses a variety of financial and operational measurements to analyze our performance. These measurements include: (1) product margin, (2) gross profit, (3) EBITDA and Adjusted EBITDA, (4) DCF, (5) selling, general and administrative expenses (“SG&A”), (6) operating expenses and (7) degree day.
Product Margin
We view product margin as an important performance measure of the core profitability of our operations. We review product margin monthly for consistency and trend analysis. We define product margin as our product sales minus product costs. Product sales primarily include sales of unbranded and branded gasoline, distillates, residual oil, renewable fuels, crude oil, natural gas and propane, as well as convenience store sales, gasoline station rental income and revenue generated from our logistics activities when we engage in the storage, transloading and shipment of products owned by others. Product costs include the cost of acquiring the refined petroleum products, renewable fuels, crude oil, natural gas and propane and all associated costs including shipping and handling costs to bring such products to the point of sale as well as product costs related to convenience store items and costs associated with our logistics activities. We also look at product margin on a per unit basis (product margin divided by volume). Product margin is a non‑GAAP financial measure used by management and external users of our consolidated financial statements to assess our business. Product margin should not be considered an alternative to net income, operating income, cash flow from operations, or any other measure of financial performance presented in accordance with GAAP. In addition, our product margin may not be comparable to product margin or a similarly titled measure of other companies.
Gross Profit
We define gross profit as our product margin minus terminal and gasoline station related depreciation expense allocated to cost of sales.
61
EBITDA and Adjusted EBITDA
EBITDA and Adjusted EBITDA are non‑GAAP financial measures used as supplemental financial measures by management and may be used by external users of our consolidated financial statements, such as investors, commercial banks and research analysts, to assess:
· |
our compliance with certain financial covenants included in our debt agreements; |
· |
our financial performance without regard to financing methods, capital structure, income taxes or historical cost basis; |
· |
our ability to generate cash sufficient to pay interest on our indebtedness and to make distributions to our partners; |
· |
our operating performance and return on invested capital as compared to those of other companies in the wholesale, marketing, storing and distribution of refined petroleum products, renewable fuels, crude oil, natural gas and propane, and in the gasoline stations and convenience stores business, without regard to financing methods and capital structure; and |
· |
the viability of acquisitions and capital expenditure projects and the overall rates of return of alternative investment opportunities. |
Adjusted EBITDA is EBITDA further adjusted for the gain or loss on the sale and disposition of assets and goodwill and long-lived asset impairment. EBITDA and Adjusted EBITDA should not be considered as alternatives to net income, operating income, cash flow from operating activities or any other measure of financial performance or liquidity presented in accordance with GAAP. EBITDA and Adjusted EBITDA exclude some, but not all, items that affect net income, and these measures may vary among other companies. Therefore, EBITDA and Adjusted EBITDA may not be comparable to similarly titled measures of other companies.
Distributable Cash Flow
DCF is an important non‑GAAP financial measure for our limited partners since it serves as an indicator of our success in providing a cash return on their investment. DCF as defined by our partnership agreement is net income plus depreciation and amortization minus maintenance capital expenditures, as well as adjustments to eliminate items approved by the audit committee of the board of directors of our general partner that are extraordinary or non-recurring in nature and that would otherwise increase DCF.
DCF as used in our partnership agreement determines our ability to make cash distributions on our incentive distribution rights. The investment community also uses a DCF metric similar to the metric used in our partnership agreement with respect to publicly traded partnerships to indicate whether or not such partnerships have generated sufficient earnings on a current or historic level that can sustain or support an increase in quarterly cash distribution. Our partnership agreement does not permit adjustments for certain non-cash items, such as net losses on the sale and disposition of assets and goodwill and long-lived asset impairment charges.
DCF should not be considered as an alternative to net income, operating income, cash flow from operations, or any other measure of financial performance presented in accordance with GAAP. In addition, our distributable cash flow may not be comparable to DCF or similarly titled measures of other companies.
Selling, General and Administrative Expenses
Our SG&A expenses include, among other things, marketing costs, corporate overhead, employee salaries and benefits, pension and 401(k) plan expenses, discretionary bonuses, non‑interest financing costs, professional fees and information technology expenses. Employee‑related expenses including employee salaries, discretionary bonuses and
62
related payroll taxes, benefits, and pension and 401(k) plan expenses are paid by our general partner which, in turn, is reimbursed for these expenses by us.
Operating Expenses
Operating expenses are costs associated with the operation of the terminals, transload facilities and gasoline stations used in our business. Lease payments, maintenance and repair, property taxes, utilities, credit card fees, taxes, labor and labor‑related expenses comprise the most significant portion of our operating expenses. The majority of these expenses remains relatively stable, independent of the volumes through our system, but fluctuate slightly depending on the activities performed during a specific period.
Degree Day
A “degree day” is an industry measurement of temperature designed to evaluate energy demand and consumption. Degree days are based on how far the average temperature departs from a human comfort level of 65°F. Each degree of temperature above 65°F is counted as one cooling degree day, and each degree of temperature below 65°F is counted as one heating degree day. Degree days are accumulated each day over the course of a year and can be compared to a monthly or a long‑term (multi‑year) average, or normal, to see if a month or a year was warmer or cooler than usual. Degree days are officially observed by the National Weather Service and officially archived by the National Climatic Data Center. For purposes of evaluating our results of operations, we use the normal heating degree day amount as reported by the National Weather Service at its Logan International Airport station in Boston, Massachusetts.
2016 Events that Impacted Results
Early Termination of Railcar Sublease—On December 21, 2016 (effective December 31, 2016), we voluntarily terminated early a sublease with a counterparty for 1,610 railcars that were underutilized due to unfavorable market conditions in the crude oil by rail market. Separately, we entered into a fleet management services agreement (effective January 1, 2017) with the counterparty, pursuant to which we will provide future railcar storage, freight, cleaning, insurance and other services on behalf of the counterparty. As a result of the sublease termination, we recognized one-time discounted lease exit and termination expenses of $80.7 million in the fourth quarter of 2016 consisting of (i) $61.7 million cash consideration, (ii) $10.7 million of accrued incremental costs relating to our obligations under the sublease, and (iii) $8.3 million associated with derecognizing accumulated prepaid rent.
The $61.7 million cash consideration represents a discount of $10.2 million from $71.9 million in railcar lease payments that we would have been obligated to pay over the next three years. The termination of the sublease eliminates future lease payments related to these railcars of approximately $30.0 million, $29.0 million and $13.0 million in 2017, 2018 and 2019, respectively. In addition to the discounted lease termination payment, the one-time expense includes costs for future railcar storage, freight, cleaning, insurance and other services, as well as certain non-cash accounting adjustments associated with the early termination. Please read Note 2 of Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements for additional information.
In connection with the sublease termination, we amended our credit agreement to permit the use of borrowings to make the early termination payment. The amendment also accelerates the step-down in the combined total leverage ratio from 5.50 times to 5.0 times effective with the quarter ended December 31, 2016 and continuing through maturity.
Goodwill and Long-Lived Asset Impairment—In 2016, we recognized a goodwill impairment charge of $121.7 million related to the Wholesale reporting unit and a long-lived asset impairment charge of $28.2 million, substantially all of which is due to crude oil related activities. See Note 2 of Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements for a description of the facts and circumstances related to the impairment charges.
Dock Expansion and Tank Conversion—In the third quarter of 2016, we completed the measures at our West Coast facility, including cleaning of tanks and associated infrastructure, to convert the facility from crude oil to ethanol transloading and began transloading ethanol.
63
Sale of Gasoline Stations—On August 22, 2016, Drake Petroleum Company, Inc., a subsidiary of ours, sold to Mirabito Holdings, Inc. 30 gasoline stations and convenience stores located in New York and Pennsylvania (the “Drake Sites”) for an aggregate total cash purchase price of approximately $40.0 million. Please read Note 5 of Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements. In connection with closing, the parties entered into long-term supply contracts for branded and unbranded gasoline and other petroleum products. The Drake Sites are a portion of the sites that were acquired by us in connection with the acquisition of Warren Equities, Inc. (“Warren”) in January 7, 2015.
In addition, beginning in April 2016, we retained a real estate firm to coordinate the sales of non-strategic GDSO sites. As of December 31, 2016, the divestiture program included approximately 80 sites, 29 of which we have sold and 30 of which met the criteria to be presented as held for sale (see Note 5 of Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements).
Sale Leaseback Transaction—On June 29, 2016, we sold real property assets, including the buildings, improvements and appurtenances thereto, at 30 gasoline stations and convenience stores located in Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Rhode Island for a purchase price of approximately $63.5 million. In connection with the sale, we entered into a master unitary lease agreement with the buyer to lease back those real property assets sold with respect to these sites. See Note 6 of Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.
Expanded Retail Network—In April 2016, we expanded our gasoline station and convenience-store network in Western Massachusetts with the addition of 22 leased retail sites (“22 leased sites”). Located in the Pittsfield and Springfield areas, these sites were added through long-term leases.
2015 Events that Impacted Results
On January 7, 2015, we acquired, through one of our wholly owned subsidiaries, Global Montello Group Corp. (“GMG”), 100% of the equity interests in Warren from The Warren Alpert Foundation.
On January 14, 2015, through our wholly owned subsidiary, Global Companies LLC (“Global Companies”), we acquired the Revere terminal (the “Revere Terminal”) located in Boston Harbor in Revere, Massachusetts from Global Petroleum Corp. (“GPC”) and related entities.
On June 1, 2015, through our wholly owned subsidiary, Alliance Energy LLC (“Alliance”), we acquired retail gasoline stations and dealer supply contracts from Capitol Petroleum Group (“Capitol”).
See Note 18 of Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements, “Business Combinations,” for additional information.
64
Key Performance Indicators
The following table provides a summary of some of the key performance indicators that may be used to assess our results of operations. These comparisons are not necessarily indicative of future results (gallons and dollars in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31, |
|
|||||||
|
2016 |
|
2015 |
|
2014 |
|
|||
Net (loss) income attributable to Global Partners LP |
$ |
(199,412) |
|
$ |
43,563 |
|
$ |
114,709 |
|
EBITDA (1) |
$ |
(4,851) |
|
$ |
225,689 |
|
$ |
242,279 |
|
Adjusted EBITDA (1)(2) |
$ |
129,782 |
|
$ |
227,786 |
|
$ |
244,461 |
|
Distributable cash flow (3)(4) |
$ |
(121,380) |
|
$ |
126,855 |
|
$ |
161,224 |
|
Wholesale Segment: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Volume (gallons) |
|
3,018,575 |
|
|
3,680,201 |
|
|
4,932,133 |
|
Sales |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gasoline and gasoline blendstocks |
$ |
2,026,315 |
|
$ |
2,714,057 |
|
$ |
7,076,105 |
|
Crude oil (5) |
|
546,541 |
|
|
1,190,560 |
|
|
2,384,018 |
|
Other oils and related products (6) |
|
1,534,165 |
|
|
2,006,668 |
|
|
3,436,006 |
|
Total |
$ |
4,107,021 |
|
$ |
5,911,285 |
|
$ |
12,896,129 |
|
Product margin |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gasoline and gasoline blendstocks |
$ |
83,742 |
|
$ |
66,031 |
|
$ |
71,713 |
|
Crude oil (5) |
|
(13,098) |
|
|
74,182 |
|
|
141,965 |
|
Other oils and related products (6) |
|
74,271 |
|
|
67,709 |
|
|
79,376 |
|
Total |
$ |
144,915 |
|
$ |
207,922 |
|
$ |
293,054 |
|
Gasoline Distribution and Station Operations Segment: (7) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Volume (gallons) |
|
1,588,163 |
|
|
1,515,702 |
|
|
1,029,978 |
|
Sales |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gasoline |
$ |
3,071,517 |
|
$ |
3,289,742 |
|
$ |
3,241,620 |
|
Station operations (8) |
|
371,661 |
|
|
381,194 |
|
|
165,756 |
|
Total |
$ |
3,443,178 |
|
$ |
3,670,936 |
|
$ |
3,407,376 |
|
Product margin |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gasoline |
$ |
289,420 |
|
$ |
276,848 |
|
$ |
189,439 |
|
Station operations (8) |
|
183,708 |
|
|
178,487 |
|
|
93,939 |
|
Total |
$ |
473,128 |
|
$ |
455,335 |
|
$ |
283,378 |
|
Commercial Segment: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Volume (gallons) |
|
526,486 |
|
|
452,089 |
|
|
393,967 |
|
Sales |
$ |
689,440 |
|
$ |
732,631 |
|
$ |
966,449 |
|
Product margin |
$ |
24,018 |
|
$ |
29,201 |
|
$ |
29,716 |
|
Combined sales and product margin: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sales |
$ |
8,239,639 |
|
$ |
10,314,852 |
|
$ |
17,269,954 |
|
Product margin (9) |
$ |
642,061 |
|
$ |
692,458 |
|
$ |
606,148 |
|
Depreciation allocated to cost of sales |
|
(95,571) |
|
|
(94,789) |
|
|
(61,361) |
|
Combined gross profit |
$ |
546,490 |
|
$ |
597,669 |
|
$ |
544,787 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
GDSO portfolio as of December 31, 2016, 2015 and 2014: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Company operated |
|
248 |
|
|
281 |
|
|
134 |
|
Commissioned agents |
|
281 |
|
|
283 |
|
|
217 |
|
Lessee dealers |
|
246 |
|
|
280 |
|
|
191 |
|
Contract dealers |
|
683 |
|
|
665 |
|
|
394 |
|
Total GDSO portfolio |
|
1,458 |
|
|
1,509 |
|
|
936 |
|
65
|
Year Ended December 31, |
|
|||||||
|
2016 |
|
2015 |
|
2014 |
|
|||
Weather conditions: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Normal heating degree days |
|
5,661 |
|
|
5,630 |
|
|
5,630 |
|
Actual heating degree days |
|
5,177 |
|
|
5,651 |
|
|
5,664 |
|
Variance from normal heating degree days |
|
(9) |
% |
|
0.37 |
% |
|
1 |
% |
Variance from prior period actual heating degree days |
|
(8) |
% |
|
(0.23) |
% |
|
3 |
% |
(1) |
EBITDA and Adjusted EBITDA are non‑GAAP financial measures which are discussed above under “—Evaluating Our Results of Operations.” The table below presents reconciliations of EBITDA and Adjusted EBITDA to the most directly comparable GAAP financial measures. |
(2) |
Adjusted EBITDA in 2016 includes lease exit and termination expenses of $80.7 million which were recorded as a result of our December 2016 voluntary early termination of a sublease for 1,610 railcars (see Note 2 of Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements). Excluding these expenses, Adjusted EBITDA would have been $210.4 million for 2016. |
(3) |
DCF is a non‑GAAP financial measure which is discussed above under “—Evaluating Our Results of Operations.” As defined by our partnership agreement, DCF is not adjusted for the loss on sale and disposition of assets and goodwill and long-lived asset impairment. The table below presents reconciliations of DCF to the most directly comparable GAAP financial measures. |
(4) |
DCF includes a net loss on sale and disposition of assets of $20.5 million, $2.1 million and $2.2 million for 2016, 2015 and 2014, respectively. DCF for 2016 also includes lease exit and termination expenses of $80.7 million which were recorded as a result of our voluntary early termination of a sublease for 1,610 railcars and a net goodwill and long-lived asset impairment of $114.1 million ($149.9 million attributed to us, offset by $35.8 million attributed to the noncontrolling interest) (see Note 2 of Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements for additional information on the lease termination and impairment charges). We did not recognize a net goodwill and long-lived asset impairment in 2015 and 2014. Excluding these charges, DCF would have been $93.9 million, $128.9 million and $163.4 million for 2016, 2015 and 2014, respectively. |
(5) |
Crude oil consists of our crude oil sales and revenue from our logistics activities. |
(6) |
Other oils and related products primarily consist of distillates, residual oil and propane. |
(7) |
The GDSO segment for 2015 includes the results of the January 2015 acquisition of Warren and the June 2015 acquisition of Capitol (see Note 18 of Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements). As the Warren assets and the Capitol assets were not in place prior to 2015, the above results are not directly comparable to the prior period. We evaluated the impact of these acquisitions and concluded there were no changes to our reportable segments. |
(8) |
Station operations primarily consist of convenience store sales and rental income. |
(9) |
Product margin is a non‑GAAP financial measure which is discussed above under “—Evaluating Our Results of Operations.” The table above includes a reconciliation of product margin on a combined basis to gross profit, a directly comparable GAAP financial measure. |
66
The following table presents reconciliations of EBITDA to the most directly comparable GAAP financial measures on a historical basis (in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31, |
|
|||||||
|
|
2016 |
|
2015 |
|
2014 |
|
|||
Reconciliation of net (loss) income to EBITDA and Adjusted EBITDA: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net (loss) income |
|
$ |
(238,623) |
|
$ |
43,264 |
|
$ |
116,980 |
|
Net loss (income) attributable to noncontrolling interest |
|
|
39,211 |
|
|
299 |
|
|
(2,271) |
|
Net (loss) income attributable to Global Partners LP |
|
|
(199,412) |
|
|
43,563 |
|
|
114,709 |
|
Depreciation and amortization, excluding the impact of noncontrolling interest |
|
|
108,189 |
|
|
110,670 |
|
|
78,888 |
|
Interest expense, excluding the impact of noncontrolling interest |
|
|
86,319 |
|
|
73,329 |
|
|
47,719 |
|
Income tax expense (benefit) |
|
|
53 |
|
|
(1,873) |
|
|
963 |
|
EBITDA |
|
|
(4,851) |
|
|
225,689 |
|
|
242,279 |
|
Net loss on sale and disposition of assets |
|
|
20,495 |
|
|
2,097 |
|
|
2,182 |
|
Goodwill and long-lived asset impairment |
|
|
149,972 |
|
|
— |
|
|
— |
|
Goodwill and long-lived asset impairment attributable to noncontrolling interest |
|
|
(35,834) |
|
|
— |
|
|
— |
|
Adjusted EBITDA (1) |
|
$ |
129,782 |
|
$ |
227,786 |
|
$ |
244,461 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reconciliation of net cash (used in) provided by operating activities to EBITDA and Adjusted EBITDA: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash (used in) provided by operating activities |
|
$ |
(119,886) |
|
$ |
62,506 |
|
$ |
344,902 |
|
Net changes in operating assets and liabilities and certain non-cash items |
|
|
(6,795) |
|
|
96,609 |
|
|
(141,558) |
|
Net cash from operating activities and changes in operating assets and liabilities attributable to noncontrolling interest |
|
|
35,458 |
|
|
(4,882) |
|
|
(9,747) |
|
Interest expense, excluding the impact of noncontrolling interest |
|
|
86,319 |
|
|
73,329 |
|
|
47,719 |
|
Income tax expense (benefit) |
|
|
53 |
|
|
(1,873) |
|
|
963 |
|
EBITDA |
|
|
(4,851) |
|
|
225,689 |
|
|
242,279 |
|
Net loss on sale and disposition of assets |
|
|
20,495 |
|
|
2,097 |
|
|
2,182 |
|
Goodwill and long-lived asset impairment |
|
|
149,972 |
|
|
— |
|
|
— |
|
Goodwill and long-lived asset impairment attributable to noncontrolling interest |
|
|
(35,834) |
|
|
— |
|
|
— |
|
Adjusted EBITDA (1) |
|
$ |
129,782 |
|
$ |
227,786 |
|
$ |
244,461 |
|
(1) |
Adjusted EBITDA in 2016 includes lease exit and termination expenses of $80.7 million which were recorded as a result of our December 2016 voluntary early termination of a sublease for 1,610 railcars (see Note 2 of Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements). Excluding these expenses, Adjusted EBITDA would have been $210.4 million for 2016. |
67
The following table presents reconciliations of DCF to the most directly comparable GAAP financial measures on a historical basis (in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31, |
|
|||||||
|
|
2016 |
|
2015 |
|
2014 |
|
|||
Reconciliation of net (loss) income to distributable cash flow: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net (loss) income |
|
$ |
(238,623) |
|
$ |
43,264 |
|
$ |
116,980 |
|
Net loss (income) attributable to noncontrolling interest |
|
|
39,211 |
|
|
299 |
|
|
(2,271) |
|
Net (loss) income attributable to Global Partners LP |
|
|
(199,412) |
|
|
43,563 |
|
|
114,709 |
|
Depreciation and amortization, excluding the impact of noncontrolling interest |
|
|
108,189 |
|
|
110,670 |
|
|
78,888 |
|
Amortization of deferred financing fees and senior notes discount |
|
|
7,412 |
|
|
6,988 |
|
|
6,186 |
|
Amortization of routine bank refinancing fees |
|
|
(4,580) |
|
|
(4,516) |
|
|
(4,444) |
|
Maintenance capital expenditures, excluding the impact of noncontrolling interest |
|
|
(32,989) |
|
|
(29,850) |
|
|
(34,115) |
|
Distributable cash flow (1)(2) |
|
$ |
(121,380) |
|
$ |
126,855 |
|
$ |
161,224 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reconciliation of net cash (used in) provided by operating activities to distributable cash flow: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash (used in) provided by operating activities |
|
$ |
(119,886) |
|
$ |
62,506 |
|
$ |
344,902 |
|
Net changes in operating assets and liabilities and certain non-cash items |
|
|
(6,795) |
|
|
96,609 |
|
|
(141,558) |
|
Net cash from operating activities and changes in operating assets and liabilities attributable to noncontrolling interest |
|
|
35,458 |
|
|
(4,882) |
|
|
(9,747) |
|
Amortization of deferred financing fees and senior notes discount |
|
|
7,412 |
|
|
6,988 |
|
|
6,186 |
|
Amortization of routine bank refinancing fees |
|
|
(4,580) |
|
|
(4,516) |
|
|
(4,444) |
|
Maintenance capital expenditures, excluding the impact of noncontrolling interest |
|
|
(32,989) |
|
|
(29,850) |
|
|
(34,115) |
|
Distributable cash flow (1)(2) |
|
$ |
(121,380) |
|
$ |
126,855 |
|
$ |
161,224 |
|
(1) |
DCF is a non-GAAP financial measure which is discussed above under “—Evaluating Our Results of Operations.” As defined by our partnership agreement, DCF is not adjusted for the loss on sale and disposition of assets and goodwill and long-lived asset impairment. |
(2) |
DCF includes a net loss on sale and disposition of assets of $20.5 million, $2.1 million and $2.2 million for 2016, 2015 and 2014, respectively. DCF for 2016 also includes lease exit and termination expenses of $80.7 million which were recorded as a result of our voluntary early termination of a sublease for 1,610 railcars and a net goodwill and long-lived asset impairment of $114.1 million ($149.9 million attributed to us, offset by $35.8 million attributed to the noncontrolling interest) (see Note 2 of Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements for additional information on the lease termination and impairment charges). We did not recognize a net goodwill and long-lived asset impairment in 2015 and 2014. Excluding these charges, DCF would have been $93.9 million, $128.9 million and $163.4 million for 2016, 2015 and 2014, respectively. |
Results of Operations for Years 2016, 2015 and 2014
Consolidated Sales
Our total sales were $8.2 billion and $10.3 billion for 2016 and 2015, respectively, a decrease of $2.1 billion, or 20%, due to a decrease in prices during 2016 and to a decline in volume sold. Our aggregate volume of product sold was 5.1 billion gallons and 5.6 billion gallons for 2016 and 2015, respectively, a decrease of approximately 0.5 billion gallons, or 9%. The decrease in volume sold includes a decrease of 661 million gallons in our Wholesale segment, primarily in crude oil and gasoline blendstocks. The decrease in volume sold was offset by increases of 74 million gallons in our Commercial segment, primarily in gasoline, and 72 million gallons in our GDSO segment, primarily due to the Capitol acquisition in June of 2015 as well as the addition of 22 leased sites in April of 2016.
Our total sales were $10.3 billion and $17.3 billion for 2015 and 2014, respectively, a decrease of $7.0 billion,
68
or 40%, primarily due to a decrease in prices and to a decline in volume sold. Our aggregate volume of product sold was 5.6 billion gallons and 6.4 billion gallons for 2015 and 2014, respectively, a decrease of 708 million gallons, or 11%. The decrease in volume sold includes a decrease of 1.2 billion gallons in our Wholesale segment, largely in gasoline and gasoline blendstocks, due primarily to the impact of an elective change in supply logistics for a particular gasoline customer in early 2015 and the discontinuation of a small discrete blendstocks distribution activity. The decrease in volume sold was offset by increases of 486 million gallons in our GDSO segment, primarily due to the Warren and Capitol acquisitions, and 59 million gallons in our Commercial segment.
Gross Profit
Our gross profit was $546.5 million and $597.7 million for 2016 and 2015, respectively, a decrease of $51.2 million, or 9%, primarily due to less activity in crude oil caused by tighter crude oil differentials. The decrease in gross profit was partially offset by favorable market conditions in our Wholesale segment in gasoline and gasoline blendstocks and an increase in our GDSO segment, substantially attributed to a full year of results from the Capitol acquisition in June 2015 and to the addition of 22 leased sites in April 2016.
Our gross profit was $597.7 million and $544.8 million for 2015 and 2014, respectively, an increase of $52.9 million, or 10%, due primarily to the Warren acquisition, which significantly contributed to our GDSO segment, and to the Capitol acquisition. The increase in gross profit was primarily offset by tighter crude oil differentials as mid-continent crude oil did not discount sufficiently to make rail transport to the East and West Coasts competitive with imports, as well as fixed costs, including railcar leases and also offset by (i) warmer weather in the fourth quarter of 2015 and a competitive distillates market during the last three quarters of 2015 that negatively impacted our distillates volume and product margin; (ii) favorable market conditions in gasoline blendstocks, primarily ethanol, in the first quarter and third quarters of 2014 that were not present in the same periods in 2015; and (iii) an increase in depreciation, which is included in cost of sales, primarily related to our 2015 acquisitions of Warren and Capitol.
Results for Wholesale Segment
Gasoline and Gasoline Blendstocks. Sales from wholesale gasoline and gasoline blendstocks were $2.0 billion and $2.7 billion for 2016 and 2015, respectively, a decrease of $0.7 billion, or 25%, due to a decrease in prices during 2016 and to a decline in volume sold, primarily in gasoline blendstocks. The decrease in volume sold in 2016 was due, in part, to a change in gasoline blendstocks supply logistics as we supplied more by rail into our Albany, New York terminal for consumption at Albany and/or for transfer to another one of our gasoline facilities. Capacity was available given the decrease in crude oil by rail volume at that terminal. Previously, supplying our system by barge prompted sales to third parties of excess quantities aggregated to fill barge capacity. Our gasoline and gasoline blendstocks product margin was $83.7 million and $66.0 million for 2016 and 2015, respectively, an increase of $17.7 million, or 27%, primarily due to favorable market conditions in wholesale gasoline and gasoline blendstocks and higher volume through our terminals.
Sales from wholesale gasoline and gasoline blendstocks were $2.7 billion and $7.1 billion for 2015 and 2014, respectively, a decrease of $4.4 billion, or 62%, due to a decrease in volume sold and in gasoline prices. The decrease in volume sold was due primarily to the impact of an elective change in supply logistics for a particular gasoline customer in early 2015 and the discontinuation of a small discrete blendstocks distribution activity. Our gasoline and gasoline blendstocks product margin was $66.0 million and $71.7 million for 2015 and 2014, respectively, a decrease of $5.7 million, or 8%, primarily due to favorable market conditions in gasoline blendstocks, primarily ethanol, during the first and third quarters of 2014 that were not present in 2015. Our gasoline product margin for 2015 was positively impacted due to favorable market conditions in wholesale gasoline in the first quarter of 2015.
Crude Oil. Crude oil sales and logistics revenues were $0.5 billion and $1.2 billion 2016 and 2015, respectively, a decrease of $0.7 billion, or 54%, due primarily to a decrease in volume sold. We had a negative product margin from crude oil of $13.1 million for 2016 compared to a product margin of $74.2 million for 2015, a decrease of $87.3 million, or 118%, primarily due to tighter crude oil differentials as mid-continent crude oil did not discount sufficiently to make rail transport to the East Coast competitive with imports. Our crude oil product margin for 2016 and 2015 was also negatively impacted by fixed costs which included barges, pipeline commitments and railcar leases. The
69
primary fixed cost allocated to crude oil was our railcar lease expense of $45.7 million and $49.0 million in 2016 and 2015, respectively. Due to the early termination of a railcar sublease in December 2016, the future lease expense for crude oil railcars was significantly reduced and is estimated at approximately $12.0 million, $6.0 million and $2.0 million in 2017, 2018 and 2019, respectively, after which these leases expire. Please read “—2016 Events that Impacted Results—Early Termination of Railcar Sublease” for additional information. Our product margin for 2016 includes $28.0 million in revenue related to the absence of logistics nominations from one particular contract customer, specifically in the second, third and fourth quarters, and logistics revenue related to this contract in the first quarter.
Crude oil sales and logistics revenues were $1.2 billion and $2.4 billion for 2015 and 2014, respectively, a decrease of $1.2 billion, or 50%, due primarily to a decline in crude oil prices. Our product margin from crude oil was $74.2 million and $142.0 million for 2015 and 2014, respectively, a decrease of $67.8 million, or 48%, primarily due to the result of tighter crude oil differentials as mid-continent crude oil did not discount sufficiently to make rail transport to the East and West Coasts competitive with imports. Also, we had a $5.0 million reserve related to a customer dispute in the first quarter of 2015. Additionally, logistics volume was lower due to declining contractual commitments with one particular customer. Our crude oil product margin was also negatively impacted by fixed costs which include contracted barges, pipeline commitments and railcar leases. The primary fixed cost in 2015 was our railcar lease expense of $49.0 million for the approximate 2,200 railcars allocated to crude oil, as compared to $35.0 million in 2014. About half of these cars were in storage as of December 31, 2015.
Other Oils and Related Products. Sales from other oils and related products (primarily distillates, residual oil and propane) were $1.5 billion and $2.0 billion for 2016 and 2015, respectively, a decrease of $0.5 billion, or 25%, primarily due to a decrease in prices. Our product margin from other oils and related products was $74.3 million and $67.7 million for 2016 and 2015, respectively, an increase of $6.6 million, or 10%, primarily, due to more favorable market conditions in distillates, improved margins in propane and an increase in residual oil volume. Our product margin was negatively impacted in 2016 due to warmer weather during the first quarter of 2016 when temperatures were 12% warmer than normal and 26% warmer than the first quarter of 2015.
Sales from other oils and related products were $2.0 billion and $3.4 billion for 2015 and 2014, respectively, a decrease of $1.4 billion, or 41%, primarily due to a decline in prices and, to a lesser extent, a decrease in volume sold. Our product margin from other oils and related products was $67.7 million and $79.4 million for 2015 and 2014, respectively, a decrease of $11.7 million, or 15%, primarily in distillates due to warmer weather during the fourth quarter of 2015 when temperatures were 24% warmer than normal and 17% warmer than the same period in 2014 and to a competitive distillates market during the last three quarters of 2015. The decrease in margin was partially offset by a stronger demand for residual oil and a stronger performance in our propane business.
Results for Gasoline Distribution and Station Operations Segment
Gasoline Distribution. Sales from gasoline distribution were $3.1 billion and $3.3 billion for 2016 and 2015, respectively, a decrease of $0.2 billion, or 6%, primarily due to lower prices during the year, offset by an increase in volume sold primarily due to the acquisition of Capitol in June 2015 and the addition of 22 leased sites in April 2016. Our volume was not negatively impacted due to the sale of the Drake Sites as we have supply contracts related to those sites. Our product margin from gasoline distribution was $289.4 million and $276.8 million for 2016 and 2015, respectively, an increase of $12.6 million, or 5%, primarily due to the Capitol acquisition, the expansion of our leased portfolio, including the addition of 22 leased sites and the opening for business of certain raze and rebuild projects and new-to-industry sites, offset by a decrease in product margin due to the sale of the Drake Sites.
Sales from gasoline distribution were $3.3 billion and $3.2 billion for 2015 and 2014, respectively, an increase of $48.2 million, or 1.5%, due to an increase in volume sold largely offset by a decline in prices. During 2015, our sales volume benefitted primarily due to the Warren acquisition and, to a lesser extent, the Capitol acquisition. Our product margin from gasoline distribution was $276.8 million and $189.4 million for 2015 and 2014, respectively, an increase of $87.4 million, or 46%, due primarily to the Warren and Capitol acquisitions and to declining gasoline prices during the first quarter of 2015 which improved our product margin for 2015, partially offset by a strong fourth quarter in 2014 when gasoline prices declined sharply which positively impacted our product margin for 2014.
70
Station Operations. Our station operations, which include (i) convenience stores sales at our directly operated stores, (ii) rental income from gasoline stations leased to dealers or from commissioned agents and from cobranding arrangements and (iii) sundries, such as car wash sales, lottery and ATM commissions, collectively generated revenues of $371.7 million and $381.2 million in 2016 and 2015, respectively, a decrease of $9.5 million, or 2%, in part due to the sale of the Drake Sites. Our product margin from station operations was $183.7 million and $178.5 million for 2016 and 2015, respectively, an increase of $5.2 million, or 3%, primarily due to a full year of rental income from the Capitol acquisition.
Revenues from our station operations were $381.2 million and $165.8 million in 2015 and 2014, respectively. Our product margin from station operations was $178.5 million and $93.9 million for 2015 and 2014, respectively. The increases in sales of $215.4 million and product margin of $84.6 million were due primarily to the Warren acquisition and, to a lesser extent, additional rental income as a result of the Capitol acquisition.
Results for Commercial Segment
Our commercial sales were $0.7 billion and $0.7 billion for 2016 and 2015, respectively. Our commercial product margin was $24.0 million and $29.2 million for 2016 and 2015, respectively, a decrease of $5.2 million, or 18%, primarily due to warmer weather in the first quarter of 2016, which negatively impacted demand for distillates and residual oil, and a decrease in bunkering activity.
Our commercial sales were $0.7 billion and $1.0 billion for 2015 and 2014, respectively, a decrease of $0.2 billion, primarily due to a decrease in prices. Our commercial product margin was $29.2 million and $29.7 million for 2015 and 2014, respectively.
Selling, General and Administrative Expenses
SG&A expenses were $149.7 million and $177.0 million for 2016 and 2015, respectively, a decrease of $27.3 million, or 15%, including decreases of $12.9 million in professional fees and due diligence expenses, primarily related to potential acquisitions and growth opportunities and $8.0 million in wages and benefits. The decrease in SG&A expenses also reflects $7.7 million in acquisition costs and restructuring charges in connection with the Warren acquisition and $3.5 million in acquisition costs in connection with the Capitol acquisition in 2015. The decrease in SG&A expenses was offset by increases of $2.6 million in severance charges incurred related to a reduction in our workforce and the severance and retention payments related to the sale of our natural gas business, $1.0 million in information technology related licenses and $1.2 million in other SG&A expenses.
SG&A expenses were $177.0 million and $154.0 million for 2015 and 2014, respectively, an increase of $23.0 million, or 15%, primarily due to the Warren acquisition. The increase in SG&A expenses was due to increases of (i) $21.7 million in wages and benefits mostly due to an increase in headcount primarily related to Warren, (ii) $3.7 million of acquisition costs related to Warren ($5.4 million were recorded in 2015 and $l.7 million were recorded in 2014), (iii) $3.5 million of acquisition costs related to Capitol, (iv) $2.3 million in a restructuring charge associated with the Warren acquisition, (v) $1.1 million in professional fees and (vi) $5.4 million of various other SG&A expenses, including increases in depreciation and insurance expenses, largely due to the Warren and Capitol acquisitions. The increase in SG&A expenses was offset by a decrease of $13.1 million in incentive compensation and $1.6 million in bank fees.
Operating Expenses
Operating expenses were $288.5 million and $290.3 million for 2016 and 2015, respectively, a decrease of $1.8 million. Operating expenses decreased by $5.4 million associated with our terminal operations (excluding our North Dakota facilities) and $5.0 million at our facilities in North Dakota, including decreases in wages and benefits at these locations of $2.9 million and $3.0 million, respectively. Included in the terminal operating expenses was $3.1 million in costs associated with cleaning tanks and related infrastructure at our Oregon facility in order to convert the facility to ethanol transloading. Operating expenses increased by $8.6 million associated with our GDSO segment, primarily due to the addition of 22 leased sites and a full year of operations from the Capitol acquisition, primarily in rent expense, direct
71
overhead, property taxes and maintenance and repairs. The increase in operating expenses in our GDSO segment was offset, in part, by the sale of the Drake Sites.
Operating expenses were $290.3 million and $204.1 million for 2015 and 2014, respectively, an increase of $86.2 million, or 42%, due to an increase of $89.0 million associated with our GDSO segment, primarily as a result of the Warren and Capitol acquisitions and, to a lesser extent, increases in direct labor, maintenance and repairs and property taxes in our GDSO segment. The increase in operating expenses was offset by decreases of $2.4 million associated with our transloading terminals in North Dakota and $0.4 million in various operating expenses associated with our terminal operations.
Lease Exit and Termination Expenses
Lease exit and termination expenses of $80.7 million for 2016 represent a one-time discounted lease termination expense related to the early termination of a sublease for 1,610 railcars leased from a third party. Please read “—2016 Events that Impacted Results—Early Termination of Railcar Sublease” for additional information.
Amortization Expense
Amortization expense related to our intangible assets was $9.4 million, $13.5 million and $18.9 million for 2016, 2015 and 2014, respectively. The decrease in amortization expense in 2016 compared to 2015 was primarily due to intangibles that became fully amortized in the second quarter of 2015, partially offset by a full year of amortization expense related to the intangibles acquired in the Capitol acquisition. The decrease in amortization expense in 2015 compared to 2014 was due to intangibles that became fully amortized in the second quarter of 2015, partially offset by the intangible assets acquired in the Warren acquisition.
Net Loss on Sale and Disposition of Assets
Net loss on sale and disposition of assets was $20.5 million, $2.1 million and $2.2 million for 2016, 2015 and 2014, respectively, primarily due to the sale of GDSO sites. Included in the net loss on sale and disposition of assets for 2016 is approximately $17.9 million of goodwill derecognized as part of the site divestitures. See Note 5 of Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements for additional information.
Goodwill and Long-Lived Asset Impairment
We recognized a goodwill impairment charge of $121.7 million for 2016 related to the Wholesale reporting unit and a long-lived asset impairment charge of $28.2 million for 2016. See Note 2 of Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements for a description of the facts and circumstances related to the impairment charges recognized in 2016.
Interest Expense
Interest expense was $86.3 million and $73.3 million for 2016 and 2015, respectively, an increase of $13.0 million, or 18%. The increase was due primarily to (i) increased interest related to the issuance of our 7.00% senior notes in June of 2015; (ii) additional borrowings related to the Capitol acquisition; (iii) an increase in working capital borrowings, primarily due to higher inventory levels; (iv) an increase of $6.2 million in 2016 associated with the financing obligations recognized in connection with the acquisition of Capitol and our sale leaseback transaction; and (v) $1.8 million associated with the write-off of a portion of our deferred financing fees associated with the elective reduction in our working capital revolving credit facility and our revolving credit facility in February 2016. The increase in interest expense was partially offset by lower average interest rates for 2016 due to the May 2016 expiration of our interest rate swap. Please see Note 6 of Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements for additional information on our 7.00% senior notes, our financing obligations and the write-off of deferred financing fees.
Interest expense was $73.3 million and $47.7 million for 2015 and 2014, respectively, an increase of $25.6 million, or 54%. The increase was due primarily to increased interest related to our 6.25% and 7.00% senior notes (see Note 6 to Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements) and to additional borrowings related to the acquisitions of
72
Warren and, to a lesser extent, Capitol. In addition, our average balance under our working capital revolving credit facility increased to $234.1 million from $208.4 million in 2014, and our average balance under our revolving credit facility increased to $382.2 million in 2015 from $353.2 million in 2014. Interest expense also includes $5.6 million for 2015 associated with the financing obligation recognized in connection with the acquisition of Capitol.
Income Tax (Expense) Benefit
Income tax (expense) benefit of ($0.1 million), $1.9 million and ($1.0 million) for 2016, 2015 and 2014, respectively, reflect the operating results of our wholly owned subsidiary, GMG, which is a taxable entity for federal and state income tax purposes. See Notes 2 and 11 of Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements for additional information on income taxes.
Net (Loss) Income Attributable to Noncontrolling Interest
In February 2013, we acquired a 60% membership interest in Basin Transload. The net (loss) income attributable to noncontrolling interest was ($39.2 million), ($0.3 million) and $2.3 million for 2016, 2015 and 2014, respectively, which represents the 40% noncontrolling ownership of the net loss reported. The noncontrolling interest for 2016 includes a $35.8 million goodwill and long-lived asset impairment.
Liquidity and Capital Resources
Liquidity
Our primary liquidity needs are to fund our working capital requirements, capital expenditures and distributions and to service our indebtedness. Our primary sources of liquidity are cash generated from operations, amounts available under our working capital revolving credit facility and equity and debt offerings. Please read “—Credit Agreement” for more information on our working capital revolving credit facility.
Working capital was $276.2 million and $272.3 million at December 31, 2016 and 2015, respectively, an increase of $3.9 million. Increases to working capital primarily include increases of $132.9 million in inventories and $110.0 million in accounts receivables due to higher prices, for a total increase of $242.9 million. The increase was offset primarily by an increase of $176.5 million in the current portion of our working capital revolving credit facility, which represents the amount we expect to pay down during the course of the year (see Note 6 of Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements), an increase of $16.5 million in accounts payable due to higher prices and a decrease of $40.2 million in the change in derivatives.
Cash Distributions
During 2016, we paid the following cash distributions to our common unitholders and our general partner:
|
|
|
|
|
Distribution Paid for the |
|
Cash Distribution Payment Date |
|
Total Paid |
|
Quarterly Period Ended |
|
|
February 16, 2016 (1) |
|
$ |
15.8 million |
|
Fourth quarter 2015 |
|
May 16, 2016 |
|
$ |
15.8 million |
|
First quarter 2016 |
|
August 12, 2016 |
|
$ |
15.8 million |
|
Second quarter 2016 |
|
November 14, 2016 |
|
$ |
15.8 million |
|
Third quarter 2016 |
|
(1) |
On January 28, 2016, we announced a reduction in the quarterly distribution for the fourth quarter of 2015 on all outstanding common units to $0.4625. This distribution represented a decrease of 33.7% from the distribution of $0.6975 per unit paid in November 2015 and a decrease of 30.5% from the distribution of $0.6650 per unit paid in February 2015. The distribution reduction reflected continuing weakness in the crude oil market. |
73
Contractual Obligations
We have contractual obligations that are required to be settled in cash. The amounts of our contractual obligations at December 31, 2016 were as follows (in thousands):
|
|
Payments due by period |
|
||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2021 and |
|
|
|
|||
Contractual Obligations |
|
2017 |
|
2018 |
|
2019 |
|
2020 |
|
Thereafter |
|
Total |
|
||||||
Credit facility obligations (1) |
|
$ |
280,284 |
|
$ |
371,033 |
|
$ |
— |
|
$ |
— |
|
$ |
— |
|
$ |
651,317 |
|
Senior notes obligations (2) |
|
|
44,438 |
|
|
44,438 |
|
|
44,438 |
|
|
44,438 |
|
|
762,657 |
|
|
940,409 |
|
Operating lease obligations (3) |
|
|
109,776 |
|
|
84,462 |
|
|
49,165 |
|
|
29,975 |
|
|
152,082 |
|
|
425,460 |
|
Capital lease obligations |
|
|
293 |
|
|
6 |
|
|
— |
|
|
— |
|
|
— |
|
|
299 |
|
Other long-term liabilities (4) |
|
|
26,634 |
|
|
24,902 |
|
|
37,813 |
|
|
25,150 |
|
|
76,323 |
|
|
190,822 |
|
Financing obligations (5) |
|
|
14,099 |
|
|
14,327 |
|
|
14,561 |
|
|
14,801 |
|
|
143,708 |
|
|
201,496 |
|
Total |
|
$ |
475,524 |
|
$ |
539,168 |
|
$ |
145,977 |
|
$ |
114,364 |
|
$ |
1,134,770 |
|
$ |
2,409,803 |
|
(1) |
Includes principal and interest on our working capital revolving credit facility and our revolving credit facility at December 31, 2016 and assumes a ratable payment through the expiration date. Our credit agreement has a contractual maturity of April 30, 2018 and no principal payments are required prior to that date. However, we repay amounts outstanding and reborrow funds based on our working capital requirements. Therefore, the current portion of the working capital revolving credit facility included in the accompanying balance sheets is the amount we expect to pay down during the course of the year, and the long-term portion of the working capital revolving credit facility is the amount we expect to be outstanding during the entire year. Please read “—Credit Agreement” for more information on our working capital revolving credit facility. |
(2) |
Includes principal and interest on our senior notes. No principal payments are required prior to maturity. |
(3) |
Includes operating lease obligations related to leases for office space and computer equipment, land, terminals and throughputs, gasoline stations, railcars, mobile equipment, access rights and barges. See Note 9 of Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements for additional information. |
(4) |
Includes amounts related to our 15-year brand fee agreement entered into in 2010 with ExxonMobil and amounts related to our pipeline connection agreements and our natural gas transportation and reservation agreements (see Note 9 of Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements for additional information on these agreements). Other long-term liabilities include pension and deferred compensation obligations. |
(5) |
Includes lease rental payments in connection with (i) the acquisition of Capitol related to properties previously sold by Capitol within two sale-leaseback transactions; and (ii) the sale of real property assets at 30 gasoline stations and convenience stores. These transactions did not meet the criteria for sale accounting and the lease rental payments are classified as interest expense on the respective financing obligation and the pay-down of the related financing obligation. See Note 6 of Notes to Consolidated Financial Statement for additional information. |
Please read Note 9 of Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements with respect to purchase commitments and sublease information related to certain lease agreements.
Capital Expenditures
Our operations require investments to maintain, expand, upgrade and enhance existing operations and to meet environmental and operational regulations. We categorize our capital requirements as either maintenance capital expenditures or expansion capital expenditures. Maintenance capital expenditures represent capital expenditures to repair or replace partially or fully depreciated assets to maintain the operating capacity of, or revenues generated by, existing assets and extend their useful lives. Maintenance capital expenditures also include expenditures required to maintain equipment reliability, tank and pipeline integrity and safety and to address certain environmental regulations. We anticipate that maintenance capital expenditures will be funded with cash generated by operations. We had approximately $33.0 million, $30.0 million and $34.1 million in maintenance capital expenditures for the years ended December 31, 2016, 2015 and 2014, respectively, which are included in capital expenditures in the accompanying consolidated statements of cash flows and largely consisted of investments in our gasoline stations. Specifically, approximately $25.7 million, $20.8 million and $18.3 million for 2016, 2015 and 2014, respectively, are related to our investments in our gasoline stations. Repair and maintenance expenses associated with existing assets that are minor in nature and do not extend the useful life of existing assets are charged to operating expenses as incurred.
74
Expansion capital expenditures include expenditures to acquire assets to grow our business or expand our existing facilities, such as projects that increase our operating capacity or revenues by, for example, increasing dock capacity and tankage, diversifying product availability, investing in raze and rebuilds and new‑to‑industry gasoline stations and convenience stores, increasing storage flexibility at various terminals and by adding terminals to our storage network. We have the ability to fund our expansion capital expenditures through cash from operations or our credit agreement or by issuing debt securities or additional equity. We had approximately $38.3 million, $496.1 million and $61.0 million in expansion capital expenditures for the years ended December 31, 2016, 2015 and 2014, respectively, which are included in capital expenditures in the accompanying consolidated statements of cash flows.
In 2016, the $38.3 million in expansion capital expenditures included approximately (i) $25.4 million in raze and rebuilds, expansion and improvements at retail gasoline stations and new-to-industry sites, and includes $5.7 million related to the addition of 22 leased sites; (ii) $7.9 million in costs associated with our terminal assets, including $7.5 million in dock and infrastructure expansion at our Oregon facility, and (iii) $5.0 million in other expansion capital expenditures, primarily related to investments in information technology and computer equipment.
In 2015, the $496.1 million in expansion capital expenditures included approximately $433.2 million in property and equipment associated with the acquisitions of Warren, the Revere Terminal and Capitol. In addition, we had $62.9 million in expansion capital expenditures which consists of (i) $36.8 million in rebuilds, expansion and improvements at retail gasoline stations and new-to-industry sites, (ii) $15.0 million in costs associated with our crude oil activities, including, tank construction projects, dock and rail expansion and improvement costs and equipment upgrades and (iii) $11.1 million in other expansion capital expenditures including, in part, investments in information technology and computer and equipment upgrades at various terminals.
In 2014, the $61.0 million in expansion capital expenditures included approximately $24.1 million in costs associated with our crude oil activities, $20.4 million in new site development, rebuilds, expansion and improvements at retail gasoline stations, $5.2 million in costs associated with our propane storage and distribution facility in Albany, New York and $11.3 million in other expansion capital expenditures including, office consolidation costs, investments in information technology and computer upgrades at various terminals, and additional equipment costs related to our compressed natural gas operations. The $24.1 million in costs associated with our crude oil activities include, in part, tank construction projects, rail expansion and improvement costs and the purchase of land for future rail expansion.
Certain of the $15.0 million and $24.1 million for 2015 and 2014, respectively, in costs associated with our crude oil activities include expenditures related to our Beulah, North Dakota facility, 60% of which was funded by us and 40% was funded by the noncontrolling interest at Basin Transload. These costs are reported in the accompanying consolidated statements of cash flows as we concluded that we control the entity based on an evaluation of the outstanding voting interests.
We currently expect maintenance capital expenditures of approximately $35.0 million to $45.0 million and expansion capital expenditures of approximately $25.0 million to $35.0 million in 2017, relating primarily to investments in our gasoline station business. These current estimates depend, in part, on the timing of completion of projects, availability of equipment, weather and unanticipated events or opportunities requiring additional maintenance or investments.
We believe that we will have sufficient cash flow from operations, borrowing capacity under our credit agreement and the ability to issue additional common units and/or debt securities to meet our financial commitments, debt service obligations, contingencies and anticipated capital expenditures. However, we are subject to business and operational risks that could adversely affect our cash flow. A material decrease in our cash flows would likely have an adverse effect on our borrowing capacity as well as our ability to issue additional common units and/or debt securities.
75
Cash Flow
The following table summarizes cash flow activity for the years ended December 31 (in thousands):
|
|
Year Ended December 31, |
|
|||||||
|
|
2016 |
|
2015 |
|
2014 |
|
|||
Net cash (used in) provided by operating activities |
|
$ |
(119,886) |
|
$ |
62,506 |
|
$ |
344,902 |
|
Net cash provided by (used in) investing activities |
|
$ |
6,447 |
|
$ |
(649,764) |
|
$ |
(91,093) |
|
Net cash provided by (used in) financing activities |
|
$ |
122,351 |
|
$ |
583,136 |
|
$ |
(257,788) |
|
Cash flow from operating activities generally reflects our net income, balance sheet changes arising from inventory purchasing patterns, the timing of collections on our accounts receivable, the seasonality of parts of our business, fluctuations in product prices, working capital requirements and general market conditions.
Net cash used in operating activities was $119.9 million for 2016 compared to net cash provided by operating activities of $62.5 million for 2015, for a year‑over‑year decrease in cash flows from operating activities of $182.4 million.
Net cash provided by operating activities was $62.5 million for 2015 compared to $344.9 million for 2014, for a year‑over‑year decrease in cash provided by operating activities of $282.4 million. The primary drivers of the changes for the years ended December 31 include the following (in thousands):
|
|
2016 |
|
2015 |
|
Change |
|
2015 |
|
2014 |
|
Change |
|
||||||
(Increase) decrease in accounts receivable |
|
$ |
(110,237) |
|
$ |
154,716 |
|
$ |
(264,953) |
|
$ |
154,716 |
|
$ |
226,962 |
|
$ |
(72,246) |
|
(Increase) decrease in inventories |
|
$ |
(135,888) |
|
$ |
(32,648) |
|
$ |
(103,240) |
|
$ |
(32,648) |
|
$ |
235,993 |
|
$ |
(268,641) |
|
Increase (decrease) in accounts payable |
|
$ |
17,410 |
|
$ |
(172,318) |
|
$ |
189,728 |
|
$ |
(172,318) |
|
$ |
(324,500) |
|
$ |
152,182 |
|
Decrease (increase) in derivatives |
|
$ |
40,218 |
|
$ |
(8,869) |
|
$ |
49,087 |
|
$ |
(8,869) |
|
|
(17,509) |
|
$ |
8,640 |
|
In 2016, the increases in accounts receivable, inventories and accounts payable are primarily due to higher prices. An increase in the take-or-pay receivable with one particular crude oil contract customer also contributed to the increase in accounts receivable. The $182.4 million decrease in cash flow from operating activities also reflects the period-over-period decrease in net income which, in part, reflects the $80.7 million lease exit and termination expenses and the decline in crude oil product margin due to tight rail differentials. The change in derivatives year over year provided funds of $49.1 million.
In 2015, the decreases in accounts payable and accounts receivable were primarily due to declining prices during the year. In addition, due to favorable market conditions, we elected to use our storage to carry increased levels of inventory. The decrease in net cash provided by operating activities was also due to the year‑over‑year decrease in net income of $73.7 million, of which $29.5 million relates to increased depreciation and amortization, primarily from the Warren and Capitol acquisitions.
In 2014, the decreases in accounts payable, inventories and accounts receivable were primarily due to declining prices. The increase in net cash provided by operating activities was largely due to the year‑over‑year increase in net income of $75.9 million. In addition, the change in derivatives year over year required funds of $23.3 million.
Net cash provided by investing activities was $6.4 million for 2016 and included $77.7 million in proceeds from the sale of property and equipment, primarily associated with the sale of the Drake Sites, the periodic divestiture of gasoline stations and the strategic asset divestiture program (see Note 5 of Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements), offset by $38.3 million in expansion capital expenditures and $33.0 million in maintenance capital expenditures.
Net cash used in investing activities was $649.7 million for 2015 and included $381.8 million, $155.7 million and $23.7 million in cash used to fund the acquisitions of Warren, Capitol and the Revere Terminal, respectively,
76
$62.9 million in expansion capital expenditures and $30.0 million in maintenance capital expenditures, offset by $4.3 million in proceeds from the sale of property and equipment.
Net cash used in investing activities was $91.1 million for 2014 and included $61.0 million in expansion capital expenditures and $34.1 million in maintenance capital expenditures, offset by $4.0 million in proceeds from the sale of property and equipment.
Please read “—Capital Expenditures” for a discussion of our expansion capital expenditures for the years ended December 31, 2016, 2015 and 2014.
Net cash provided by financing activities was $122.4 million for 2016 and included $176.5 million in net borrowings from our working capital revolving credit facility, due primarily to an increase in prices, and $62.5 million in net proceeds from our sale leaseback transaction (see Note 6 to Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements), offset by $62.5 million in cash distributions to our common unitholders and our general partner, $52.3 million in net payments on our revolving credit facility representing proceeds from asset sales, partially offset by $61.7 million in borrowings in connection with our railcar sublease termination, and $1.8 million in distributions to our noncontrolling interest at Basin Transload. Please read Note 22 of Notes to Consolidated Financial Statement for supplemental cash flow information related to our working capital revolving credit facility and revolving credit facility.
Net cash provided by financing activities was $583.1 million for 2015 and included $295.3 million in net proceeds from the issuance of our 7.00% senior notes, $148.1 million in net borrowings from our working capital revolving credit facility, in part to fund an increase in stored inventory due to favorable market conditions, $135.2 million in net borrowings from our revolving credit facility to fund the acquisitions of Warren, the Revere Terminal and Capitol, $109.3 million in net proceeds from our June 2015 issuance of common units and $2.6 million in capital contributions from our noncontrolling interest at Basin Transload. Net cash provided by financing activities was offset by $97.5 million in cash distributions to our common unitholders and our general partner, $5.3 million in distributions to our noncontrolling interest at Basin Transload, $3.9 million in the repurchase of common units pursuant to our repurchase program for future satisfaction of our LTIP obligations and $0.7 million in net payments on our line of credit related to Basin Transload.
Net cash used in financing activities was $257.8 million for 2014 and included $300.9 million in net payments on our working capital revolving credit facility, $227.0 million in net payments on our revolving credit facility in connection with the issuance of our 6.25% senior notes, $73.8 million in cash distributions to our common unitholders and our general partner, $40.2 million in payments related to the exchange of our former senior notes in connection with the issuance of our 6.25% senior notes, $9.2 million distributions to our noncontrolling interest at Basin Transload, $8.6 million in the repurchase of common units pursuant to our repurchase program for future satisfaction of our LTIP obligations and $3.0 million in net payments on our line of credit related to Basin Transload. Net cash used in financing activities was offset by $258.9 million in net proceeds from the issuance of our 6.25% senior notes, $137.8 million in proceeds from our December 2014 public offering and $8.2 million in capital contributions from our noncontrolling interest at Basin Transload.
Credit Agreement
Certain subsidiaries of ours, as borrowers, and we and certain of our subsidiaries, as guarantors, have a $1.475 billion senior secured credit facility. We repay amounts outstanding and reborrow funds based on our working capital requirements and, therefore, classify as a current liability the portion of the working capital revolving credit facility we expect to pay down during the course of the year. The long-term portion of the working capital revolving credit facility is the amount we expect to be outstanding during the entire year. The credit agreement will mature on April 30, 2018.
As of December 31, 2016, the two facilities under the credit agreement included:
· |
a working capital revolving credit facility to be used for working capital purposes and letters of credit in the principal amount equal to the lesser of our borrowing base and $900.0 million; and |
77
· |
a $575.0 million revolving credit facility to be used for acquisitions, joint ventures, capital expenditures, letters of credit and general corporate purposes. |
In addition, the credit agreement has an accordion feature whereby we may request on the same terms and conditions of our then-existing credit agreement, provided no Event of Default (as defined in the credit agreement) then exists, an increase to the working capital revolving credit facility, the revolving credit facility, or both, by up to another $300.0 million, in the aggregate, for a total credit facility of up to $1.775 billion. We cannot provide assurance, however, that our lending group will agree to fund any request by us for additional amounts in excess of the total available commitments of $1.475 billion.
In addition, the credit agreement includes a swing line pursuant to which Bank of America, N.A., as the swing line lender, may make swing line loans in U.S. Dollars in an aggregate amount equal to the lesser of (a) $50.0 million and (b) the Aggregate WC Commitments (as defined in the credit agreement). Swing line loans will bear interest at the Base Rate (as defined in the credit agreement). The swing line is a sub-portion of the working capital revolving credit facility and is not an addition to the total available commitments of $1.475 billion.
Availability under the working capital revolving credit facility is subject to a borrowing base which is redetermined from time to time based on specific advance rates on eligible current assets. Under the credit agreement, borrowings under the working capital revolving credit facility cannot exceed the then current borrowing base. Availability under the borrowing base may be affected by events beyond our control, such as changes in petroleum product prices, collection cycles, counterparty performance, advance rates and limits and general economic conditions. These and other events could require us to seek waivers or amendments of covenants or alternative sources of financing or to reduce expenditures. We can provide no assurance that such waivers, amendments or alternative financing could be obtained or, if obtained, would be on terms acceptable to us.
Borrowings under the working capital revolving credit facility bear interest at (1) the Eurocurrency rate plus 2.00% to 2.50%, (2) the cost of funds rate plus 2.00% to 2.50%, or (3) the base rate plus 1.00% to 1.50%, each depending on the Utilization Amount (as defined in the credit agreement). Borrowings under the revolving credit facility bear interest at (1) the Eurocurrency rate plus 2.25% to 3.50%, (2) the cost of funds rate plus 2.25% to 3.50%, or (3) the base rate plus 1.25% to 2.50%, each depending on the Combined Total Leverage Ratio (as defined in the credit agreement).
The average interest rates for the credit agreement were 3.5%, 3.6% and 3.7% for the years ended December 31, 2016, 2015 and 2014, respectively. The decline in the average interest rates is due to the May 2016 expiration of an interest rate swap.
The credit agreement provides for a letter of credit fee equal to the then applicable working capital rate or then applicable revolver rate (each such rate as defined in the credit agreement) per annum for each letter of credit issued. In addition, we incur a commitment fee on the unused portion of each facility under the credit agreement, ranging from 0.375% to 0.50% per annum.
As of December 31, 2016, we had total borrowings outstanding under the credit agreement of $641.3 million, including $216.7 million outstanding on the revolving credit facility. In addition, we had outstanding letters of credit of $68.9 million. Subject to borrowing base limitations, the total remaining availability for borrowings and letters of credit was $764.8 million and $1.2 billion at December 31, 2016 and 2015, respectively.
Our obligations under the credit agreement are secured by substantially all of our assets and the assets of our wholly-owned subsidiaries, and the credit agreement is guaranteed by our subsidiaries and us with the exception of Basin Transload.
The credit agreement imposes financial covenants that require us to maintain certain minimum working capital amounts, a minimum combined interest coverage ratio, a maximum senior secured leverage ratio and a maximum total leverage ratio. We were in compliance with the foregoing covenants at December 31, 2016. The credit agreement also contains a representation whereby there can be no event or circumstance, either individually or in the aggregate, that has
78
had or could reasonably be expected to have a Material Adverse Effect (as defined in the credit agreement). In addition, the credit agreement limits distributions by us to our unitholders to the amount of Available Cash (as defined in the partnership agreement).
6.25% Senior Notes
On June 19, 2014, we and GLP Finance Corp. (collectively, the “Issuers”) entered into a Purchase Agreement (the “Purchase Agreement”) with the Initial Purchasers (as defined therein) (the “Initial Purchasers”) pursuant to which the Issuers agreed to sell $375.0 million aggregate principal amount of the Issuers’ 6.25% senior notes due 2022 (the “6.25% Notes”) to the Initial Purchasers in a private placement exempt from the registration requirements under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “Securities Act”). The 6.25% Notes were resold by the Initial Purchasers to qualified institutional buyers pursuant to Rule 144A under the Securities Act and to persons outside the United States pursuant to Regulation S under the Securities Act.
The Purchase Agreement contained customary representations and warranties of the parties and indemnification and contribution provisions under which the Issuers and the subsidiary guarantors, on one hand, and the Initial Purchasers, on the other, agreed to indemnify each other against certain liabilities, including liabilities under the Securities Act. In addition, the Purchase Agreement required the execution of a registration rights agreement, described below, relating to the 6.25% Notes. Closing of the offering occurred on June 24, 2014.
Indenture
In connection with the private placement of the 6.25% Notes on June 24, 2014, the Issuers and the subsidiary guarantors and Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, as trustee, entered into an indenture (the “Indenture”).
The 6.25% Notes mature on July 15, 2022 with interest accruing at a rate of 6.25% per annum and payable semi‑annually in arrears on January 15 and July 15 of each year, commencing January 15, 2015. The 6.25% Notes are guaranteed on a joint and several senior unsecured basis by each of the Issuers and the subsidiary guarantors to the extent set forth in the Indenture. Upon a continuing event of default, the trustee or the holders of at least 25% in principal amount of the 6.25% Notes may declare the 6.25% Notes immediately due and payable, except that an event of default resulting from entry into a bankruptcy, insolvency or reorganization with respect to us, any restricted subsidiary of ours that is a significant subsidiary or any group of our restricted subsidiaries that, taken together, would constitute a significant subsidiary of ours, will automatically cause the 6.25% Notes to become due and payable.
The Issuers have the option to redeem up to 35% of the 6.25% Notes prior to July 15, 2017 at a redemption price (expressed as a percentage of principal amount) of 106.25% plus accrued and unpaid interest, if any. The Issuers have the option to redeem the 6.25% Notes, in whole or in part, at any time on or after July 15, 2017, at the redemption prices of 104.688% for the twelve‑month period beginning on July 15, 2017, 103.125% for the twelve‑month period beginning July 15, 2018, 101.563% for the twelve‑month period beginning July 15, 2019, and 100.0% beginning on July 15, 2020 and at any time thereafter, together with any accrued and unpaid interest to the date of redemption. In addition, before July 15, 2017, the Issuers may redeem all or any part of the 6.25% Notes at a redemption price equal to the sum of the principal amount thereof, plus a make whole premium at the redemption date, plus accrued and unpaid interest, if any, to the redemption date. The holders of the notes may require the Issuers to repurchase the 6.25% Notes following certain asset sales or a Change of Control (as defined in the Indenture) at the prices and on the terms specified in the Indenture.
The Indenture contains covenants that will limit our ability to, among other things, incur additional indebtedness and issue preferred securities, make certain dividends and distributions, make certain investments and other restricted payments, restrict distributions by our subsidiaries, create liens, enter into sale‑leaseback transactions, sell assets or merge with other entities. Events of default under the Indenture include (i) a default in payment of principal of, or interest or premium, if any, on, the 6.25% Notes, (ii) breach of our covenants under the Indenture, (iii) certain events of bankruptcy and insolvency, (iv) any payment default or acceleration of indebtedness of ours or certain subsidiaries if the total amount of such indebtedness unpaid or accelerated exceeds $15.0 million and (v) failure to pay within 60 days uninsured final judgments exceeding $15.0 million.
79
Registration Rights Agreement
On June 24, 2014, the Issuers and the subsidiary guarantors entered into a registration rights agreement (the “Registration Rights Agreement”) with the Initial Purchasers in connection with the Issuers’ private placement of the 6.25% Notes. Under the Registration Rights Agreement, the Issuers and the subsidiary guarantors agreed to file and use commercially reasonable efforts to cause to become effective a registration statement relating to an offer to exchange the 6.25% Notes for an issue of SEC‑registered notes with terms identical to the 6.25% Notes (except that the exchange notes are not subject to restrictions on transfer or to any increase in annual interest rate for failure to comply with the Registration Rights Agreement) that are registered under the Securities Act so as to permit the exchange offer to be consummated by the 360th day after June 24, 2014. The exchange offer was completed on April 21, 2015, and 100% of the 6.25% Notes were exchanged for SEC-registered notes.
7.00% Senior Notes
On June 1, 2015, the Issuers entered into a Purchase Agreement (the “7.00% Notes Purchase Agreement”) with the Initial Purchasers (as defined therein) (the “7.00% Notes Initial Purchasers”) pursuant to which the Issuers agreed to sell $300.0 million aggregate principal amount of the Issuers’ 7.00% senior notes due 2023 (the “7.00% Notes”) to the 7.00% Notes Initial Purchasers in a private placement exempt from the registration requirements under the Securities Act. The 7.00% Notes were resold by the 7.00% Notes Initial Purchasers to qualified institutional buyers pursuant to Rule 144A under the Securities Act and to persons outside the United States pursuant to Regulation S under the Securities Act.
The 7.00% Notes Purchase Agreement contained customary representations and warranties of the parties and indemnification and contribution provisions under which the Issuers and the subsidiary guarantors, on one hand, and the 7.00% Notes Initial Purchasers, on the other, agreed to indemnify each other against certain liabilities, including liabilities under the Securities Act. In addition, the 7.00% Notes Purchase Agreement required the execution of a registration rights agreement, described below, relating to the 7.00% Notes. Closing of the offering occurred on June 4, 2015.
Indenture
In connection with the private placement of the 7.00% Notes on June 4, 2015 the Issuers and the subsidiary guarantors and Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, as trustee, entered into an indenture (the “7.00% Notes Indenture”).
The 7.00% Notes will mature on June 15, 2023 with interest accruing at a rate of 7.00% per annum and payable semi-annually in arrears on June 15 and December 15 of each year, commencing December 15, 2015. The 7.00% Notes are guaranteed on a joint and several senior unsecured basis by each of the Issuers and the subsidiary guarantors to the extent set forth in the 7.00% Notes Indenture. Upon a continuing event of default, the trustee or the holders of at least 25% in principal amount of the 7.00% Notes may declare the 7.00% Notes immediately due and payable, except that an event of default resulting from entry into a bankruptcy, insolvency or reorganization with respect to us, any restricted subsidiary of ours that is a significant subsidiary or any group of our restricted subsidiaries that, taken together, would constitute a significant subsidiary of ours, will automatically cause the 7.00% Notes to become due and payable.
The Issuers will have the option to redeem up to 35% of the 7.00% Notes prior to June 15, 2018 at a redemption price (expressed as a percentage of principal amount) of 107.00% plus accrued and unpaid interest, if any. The Issuers have the option to redeem the 7.00% Notes, in whole or in part, at any time on or after June 15, 2018, at the redemption prices of 105.250% for the twelve-month period beginning June 15, 2018, 103.500% for the twelve-month period beginning June 15, 2019, 101.750% for the twelve-month period beginning June 15, 2020, and 100.0% beginning June 15, 2021 and at any time thereafter, together with any accrued and unpaid interest to the date of redemption. In addition, before June 15, 2018, the Issuers may redeem all or any part of the 7.00% Notes at a redemption price equal to the sum of the principal amount thereof, plus a make whole premium, plus accrued and unpaid interest, if any, to the redemption date. The holders of the 7.00% Notes may require the Issuers to repurchase the 7.00% Notes following certain asset sales or a Change of Control (as defined in the 7.00% Notes Indenture) at the prices and on the terms
80
specified in the 7.00% Notes Indenture.
The 7.00% Notes Indenture contains covenants that will limit our ability to, among other things, incur additional indebtedness and issue preferred securities, make certain dividends and distributions, make certain investments and other restricted payments, restrict distributions by our subsidiaries, create liens, enter into sale-leaseback transactions, sell assets or merge with other entities. Events of default under the 7.00% Notes Indenture include (i) a default in payment of principal of, or interest or premium, if any, on, the 7.00% Notes, (ii) breach of our covenants under the 7.00% Notes Indenture, (iii) certain events of bankruptcy and insolvency, (iv) any payment default or acceleration of indebtedness of ours or certain subsidiaries if the total amount of such indebtedness unpaid or accelerated exceeds $50.0 million and (v) failure to pay within 60 days uninsured final judgments exceeding $50.0 million.
Registration Rights Agreement
On June 4, 2015, the Issuers and the subsidiary guarantors entered into a registration rights agreement (the “7.00% Notes Registration Rights Agreement”) with the 7.00% Notes Initial Purchasers in connection with the Issuers’ private placement of the 7.00% Notes. Under the 7.00% Notes Registration Rights Agreement, the Issuers and the subsidiary guarantors agreed to file and use commercially reasonable efforts to cause to become effective a registration statement relating to an offer to exchange the 7.00% Notes for an issue of SEC-registered notes with terms identical to the 7.00% Notes (except that the exchange notes are not subject to restrictions on transfer or to any increase in annual interest rate for failure to comply with the 7.00% Notes Registration Rights Agreement) that are registered under the Securities Act so as to permit the exchange offer to be consummated by the 420th day after June 4, 2015. The exchange offer was completed on October 22, 2015, and 100% of the 7.00% Notes were exchanged for SEC-registered notes.
Financing Obligations
Capitol Acquisition
In connection with the Capitol acquisition on June 1, 2015, we assumed a financing obligation of $89.6 million associated with two sale-leaseback transactions by Capitol for 53 leased sites that did not meet the criteria for sale accounting. During the term of these leases, which expire in May 2028 and September 2029, in lieu of recognizing lease expense for the lease rental payments, we incur interest expense associated with the financing obligation. Interest expense of approximately $9.6 million and $5.6 million was recorded for the years ended December 31, 2016 and 2015, respectively, and is included in interest expense in the accompanying statements of operations. The financing obligation will amortize through expiration of the lease based upon the lease rental payments which were $9.5 million and $5.4 million for the years ended December 31, 2016 and 2015, respectively. The financing obligation balance outstanding at December 31, 2016 was $89.9 million associated with the Capitol acquisition.
Sale Leaseback Transaction
On June 29, 2016, we, through our wholly owned subsidiaries, Global Companies, GMG and Alliance, and Alliance’s wholly owned subsidiary, Bursaw Oil LLC, sold to a premier institutional real estate investor (the “Buyer”) real property assets, including the buildings, improvements and appurtenances thereto, at 30 gasoline stations and convenience stores located in Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Rhode Island (the “Sale Leaseback Sites”) for a purchase price of approximately $63.5 million. In connection with the sale, we entered into a Master Unitary Lease Agreement with the Buyer to lease back the real property assets sold with respect to the Sale Leaseback Sites (such Master Lease Agreement, together with the Sale Leaseback Sites, the “Sale Leaseback Transaction”). The Master Unitary Lease Agreement provides for an initial term of fifteen years that expires in 2031. We have one successive option to renew the lease for a ten-year period followed by two successive options to renew the lease for five-year periods on the same terms, covenants, conditions and rental as the primary non-revocable lease term. We do not have any residual interest nor the option to repurchase any of the sites at the end of the lease term. The proceeds from the Sale Leaseback Transaction were used to reduce indebtedness outstanding under our revolving credit facility.
The sale did not meet the criteria for sale accounting as of December 31, 2016 due to prohibited continuing involvement. Specifically, the sale is considered a partial-sale transaction, which is a form of continuing involvement as
81
we did not transfer to the Buyer the storage tank systems which are considered integral equipment of the Sale Leaseback Sites. Additionally, a portion of the sold sites have material sub-lease arrangements, which is also a form of continuing involvement. As the sale of the Sale-Leaseback Sites did not meet the criteria for sale accounting, we did not recognize a gain or loss on the sale of the Sale Leaseback Sites for the year ended December 31, 2016.
As a result of not meeting the criteria for sale accounting for these sites, the Sale Leaseback Transaction is accounted for as a financing arrangement. As such, the property and equipment sold and leased back by us has not been derecognized and continues to be depreciated. We recognized a corresponding financing obligation of $62.5 million equal to the $63.5 million cash proceeds received for the sale of these sites, net of $1.0 million financing fees. During the term of the lease, which expires in June 2031, in lieu of recognizing lease expense for the lease rental payments, we will incur interest expense associated with the financing obligation. Lease rental payments will be recognized as both interest expense and a reduction of the principal balance associated with the financing obligation. Interest expense and lease rental payments were $2.2 million for the year ended December 31, 2016. The financing obligation balance outstanding at December 31, 2016 was $62.5 million associated with the Sale Leaseback Transaction.
Deferred Financing Fees
We incur bank fees related to our credit agreement and other financing arrangements. These deferred financing fees are capitalized and amortized over the life of the credit agreement or other financing arrangements. We capitalized additional financing fees of $1.0 million for the year ended December 31, 2016, including recording, deed transfer, survey and legal fees associated with the financing obligation recognized as part of the Sale Leaseback Transaction and $2.0 million associated with the February 2016 amendment to the credit agreement. We had unamortized deferred financing fees of $14.1 million and $19.0 million at December 31, 2016 and 2015, respectively.
Unamortized fees related to the credit agreement are included in other current assets and other long-term assets and amounted to $6.5 million and $11.2 million at December 31, 2016 and 2015, respectively. Unamortized fees related to the senior notes are presented as a direct deduction from the carrying amount of that debt liability, consistent with debt discounts, and amounted to $6.6 million and $7.8 million at December 31, 2016 and 2015, respectively. Unamortized fees related to the Sale-Leaseback Transaction are presented as a direct deduction from the carrying amount of the financing obligation and amounted to $1.0 million at December 31, 2016.
On February 24, 2016, we voluntarily elected to reduce our working capital revolving credit facility from $1.0 billion to $900.0 million and our revolving credit facility from $775.0 million to $575.0 million. As a result, we incurred expenses of approximately $1.8 million associated with the write-off of a portion of our deferred financing fees. These expenses are included in interest expense in the accompanying statement of operations for the year ended December 31, 2016.
Amortization expense of approximately $6.0 million, $5.9 million and $5.6 million for the years ended December 31, 2016, 2015 and 2014, respectively, is included in interest expense in the accompanying consolidated statements of operations.
Off‑Balance Sheet Arrangements
We have no off‑balance sheet arrangements.
Impact of Inflation
Inflation has been relatively low in recent years and did not have a material impact on our results of operations for the years ended December 31, 2016, 2015 and 2014.
Environmental Matters
Our business of supplying refined petroleum products, renewable fuels, crude oil and propane, and other business activities, involves a number of activities that are subject to extensive and stringent environmental laws. For a
82
complete discussion of the environmental laws and regulations affecting our business, please read Items 1 and 2, “Business and Properties—Environmental.” For additional information regarding our environmental liabilities, see Note 12 of Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements included elsewhere in this report.
Critical Accounting Policies and Estimates
A summary of the significant accounting policies that we have adopted and followed in the preparation of our consolidated financial statements is detailed in Note 2 of Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements. Certain of these accounting policies require the use of estimates. These estimates are based on our knowledge and understanding of current conditions and actions that we may take in the future. Changes in these estimates will occur as a result of the passage of time and the occurrence of future events. Subsequent changes in these estimates may have a significant impact on our financial condition and results of operations and are recorded in the period in which they become known. We have identified the following estimates that, in our opinion, are subjective in nature, require the exercise of judgment and involve complex analysis:
Inventory
We hedge substantially all of our petroleum and ethanol inventory using a variety of instruments, primarily exchanged‑traded futures contracts. These futures contracts are entered into when inventory is purchased and are either designated as fair value hedges against the inventory on a specific barrel basis for inventories qualifying for fair value hedge accounting or not designated and maintained as economic hedges against certain inventory of ours on a specific barrel basis. Changes in fair value of these futures contracts, as well as the offsetting change in fair value on the hedged inventory, is recognized in earnings as an increase or decrease in cost of sales. All hedged inventory designated in a fair value hedge relationship is valued using the lower of cost, as determined by specific identification, or market, as determined at the product level. All petroleum and ethanol inventory not designated in a fair value hedging relationship is carried at the lower of historical cost, on a first‑in, first‑out basis, or market.
Convenience store inventory and RIN inventory are carried at the lower of historical cost or market.
In addition to our own inventory, we have exchange agreements for petroleum products and ethanol with unrelated third party suppliers, whereby we may draw inventory from these other suppliers and suppliers may draw inventory from us. Positive exchange balances are accounted for as accounts receivable. Negative exchange balances are accounted for as accounts payable. Exchange transactions are valued using current carrying costs.
Leases
We have terminal and throughput lease arrangements with various other oil terminals and third parties, certain of which arrangements have minimum usage requirements. In addition, we lease certain gasoline stations from third parties under long‑term arrangements with various expiration dates. We also have several long‑term lease agreements with Getty Realty, which enables us to supply and operate certain Getty Realty gasoline station sites, and with the Port of St. Helens in Clatskanie, Oregon for land and for access rights to a rail spur and dock located at our Oregon facility.
We have future commitments, principally for office space and computer equipment, under the terms of operating lease arrangements. We also lease railcars and barges through various lease arrangements with various expiration dates. We have rental income from gasoline stations and cobranding arrangements and lease income from space leased to several unrelated third parties at several of our terminals. Additionally, we have capital leases for other computer equipment and leasehold improvements.
In addition, in June of 2016, we sold real property assets, including the buildings, improvements and appurtenances thereto, at 30 gasoline stations and convenience stores. In connection with this sale leaseback transaction, we are party to a master unitary lease agreement with the buyer to lease back those real property assets sold with respect to such sites. Please read Note 6 of Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements for additional information.
Accounting and reporting guidance for leases requires that leases be evaluated and classified as operating or capital leases for financial reporting purposes. The lease term used for lease evaluation includes option periods only in
83
instances in which the exercise of the option period can be reasonably assured and failure to exercise such options would result in an economic penalty. Lease rental expense and income is recognized on a straight‑line basis over the term of the lease.
Revenue Recognition
Sales relate primarily to the sale of refined petroleum products, renewable fuels, crude oil, natural gas and propane and are recognized along with the related receivable upon delivery, net of applicable provisions for discounts and allowances. We may also provide for shipping costs at the time of sale, which are included in cost of sales. In addition, we generate revenue from our logistics activities when we engage in the storage, transloading and shipment of products owned by others. Revenue for logistics services is recognized as services are provided.
We have certain logistics agreements that require counterparties to throughput a minimum volume over an agreed-upon period. These agreements may include make-up rights if the minimum volume is not met. We recognize revenue associated with make-up rights at the earlier of when the make-up volume is shipped, the make-up right expires or when it is determined that the likelihood that the shipper will utilize the make-up right is remote.
We also recognize convenience store sales of gasoline, grocery and other merchandise and commissions on lottery at the time of the sale to the customer. Gasoline station rental income is recognized on a straight‑line basis over the term of the lease.
Product revenue is not recognized on exchange agreements, which are entered into primarily to acquire various refined petroleum products, renewable fuels and crude oil of a desired quality or to reduce transportation costs by taking delivery of products closer to our end markets. Any net differential for exchange agreements is to be recorded as a nonmonetary adjustment of inventory costs.
The amounts recorded for bad debts are generally based upon a specific analysis of aged accounts while also factoring in any new business conditions that might impact the historical analysis, such as market conditions and bankruptcies of particular customers. Bad debt provisions are included in selling, general and administrative expenses.
We collect trustee taxes, which consist of various pass through taxes collected on behalf of taxing authorities, and remit such taxes directly to those taxing authorities. As such, it is our policy to exclude trustee taxes from revenues and cost of sales and account for them as current liabilities.
Derivative Financial Instruments
We principally use derivative instruments, which include regulated exchange‑ traded futures and options contracts (collectively, “exchange‑traded derivatives”) and physical and financial forwards and over‑the counter (“OTC”) swaps (collectively, “OTC derivatives”), to reduce our exposure to unfavorable changes in commodity market prices and interest rates. We use these exchange‑traded and OTC derivatives to hedge commodity price risk associated with our inventory and undelivered forward commodity purchases and sales (“physical forward contracts”) and use interest rate swap instruments to reduce our exposure to fluctuations in interest rates associated with our credit facilities. We account for derivative transactions in accordance with ASC 815, “Derivatives and Hedging,” and recognize derivatives instruments as either assets or liabilities in the consolidated balance sheet and measure those instruments at fair value. The changes in fair value of the derivative transactions are presented currently in earnings, unless specific hedge accounting criteria are met.
The fair value of exchange‑traded derivative transactions reflects amounts that would be received from or paid to our brokers upon liquidation of these contracts. The fair value of these exchange‑traded derivative transactions are presented on a net basis, offset by the cash balances on deposit with our brokers, presented as brokerage margin deposits in the consolidated balance sheets. The fair value of OTC derivative transactions reflects amounts that would be received from or paid to a third party upon liquidation of these contracts under current market conditions. The fair value of these OTC derivative transactions is presented on a gross basis as derivative assets or derivative liabilities in the consolidated
84
balance sheets, unless a legal right of offset exists. The presentation of the change in fair value of our exchange‑ traded derivatives and OTC derivative transactions depends on the intended use of the derivative and the resulting designation.
Derivatives Accounted for as Hedges—We utilize fair value hedges and cash flow hedges to hedge commodity price risk and interest rate risk.
Fair Value Hedges
Derivatives designated as fair value hedges are used to hedge price risk in commodity inventories and principally include exchange‑traded futures contracts that are entered into in the ordinary course of business. For a derivative instrument designated as a fair value hedge, the gain or loss is recognized in earnings in the period of change together with the offsetting change in fair value on the hedged item of the risk being hedged. Gains and losses related to fair value hedges are recognized in the consolidated statement of operations through cost of sales. These futures contracts are settled on a daily basis by us through brokerage margin accounts.
Cash Flow Hedges
Derivatives designated as cash flow hedges are used to hedge interest rate risk from fluctuations in interest rates and may include various interest rate derivative instruments entered into with major financial institutions. For a derivative instrument being designated as a cash flow hedge, the effective portion of the derivative gain or loss is initially reported as a component of other comprehensive income (loss) and subsequently reclassified into the consolidated statement of operations through interest expense in the same period that the hedged exposure affects earnings. The ineffective portion is recognized in the consolidated statement of operations immediately.
Derivatives Not Accounted for as Hedges—We utilize petroleum and ethanol commodity contracts, natural gas commodity contracts and foreign currency derivatives to hedge price and currency risk in certain commodity inventories and physical forward contracts.
Petroleum and Ethanol Commodity Contracts
We use exchange‑traded derivative contracts to hedge price risk in certain commodity inventories which do not qualify for fair value hedge accounting or are not designated by us as fair value hedges. Additionally, we use exchange‑ traded derivative contracts, and occasionally financial forward and OTC swap agreements, to hedge commodity price exposure associated with our physical forward contracts which are not designated by us as cash flow hedges. These physical forward contracts, to the extent they meet the definition of a derivative, are considered OTC physical forwards and are reflected as derivative assets or derivative liabilities in the consolidated balance sheet. The related exchange‑ traded derivative contracts (and financial forward and OTC swaps, if applicable) are also reflected as brokerage margin deposits (and derivative assets or derivative liabilities, if applicable) in the consolidated balance sheet, thereby creating an economic hedge. Changes in fair value of these derivative instruments are recognized in the consolidated statement of operations through cost of sales. These exchange traded derivatives are settled on a daily basis by us through brokerage margin accounts.
While we seek to maintain a position that is substantially balanced within our commodity product purchase and sale activities, we may experience net unbalanced positions for short periods of time as a result of variances in daily purchases and sales and transportation and delivery schedules as well as other logistical issues inherent in the business, such as weather conditions. In connection with managing these positions, we are aided by maintaining a constant presence in the marketplace. We also engage in a controlled trading program for up to an aggregate of 250,000 barrels of commodity products at any one point in time. Changes in fair value of these derivative instruments are recognized in the consolidated statement of operations through cost of sales.
Natural Gas Commodity Contracts
We use physical forward purchase contracts to hedge price risk associated with the marketing and selling of natural gas to third‑party users. These physical forward purchase commitments for natural gas are typically executed
85
when we enter into physical forward sale commitments of product for physical delivery. These physical forward contracts, to the extent they meet the definition of a derivative, are reflected as derivative assets and derivative liabilities in the consolidated balance sheet. Changes in fair value of the forward purchase and sale commitments are recognized in the consolidated statement of operations through cost of sales.
Foreign Currency Contracts
We use forward foreign currency contracts to hedge certain foreign denominated (Canadian) commodity product purchases. These forward foreign currency contracts are not designated by us as hedges and are reflected as prepaid expenses and other current assets or accrued expenses and other current liabilities in the consolidated balance sheets. Changes in fair values of these forward foreign currency contracts are reflected in cost of sales.
Margin Deposits
All of our exchange‑traded derivative contracts (designated and not designated) are transacted through clearing brokers. We deposit initial margin with the clearing brokers, along with variation margin, which is paid or received on a daily basis, based upon the changes in fair value of open futures contracts and settlement of closed futures contracts. Cash balances on deposit with clearing brokers and open equity are presented on a net basis within brokerage margin deposits in the consolidated balance sheets.
Goodwill
Goodwill represents the future economic benefits arising from assets acquired in a business combination that are not individually identified and separately recognized. We have concluded that our operating segments are also our reporting units. Goodwill is tested for impairment annually as of October 1 or when events or changes in circumstances indicate that the carrying amount of goodwill may not be recoverable. Derecognized goodwill associated with our disposition activities of GDSO sites will be included in the carrying value of assets sold in determining the gain or loss on disposal, to the extent the disposition of assets qualifies as a disposition of a business under ASC 805. As of December 31, 2016, GDSO reporting unit goodwill of $17.9 million has been derecognized related to the disposition of a portfolio of sites for the year ended December 31, 2016 (see Note 5 of Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements).
As disclosed in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2015, the declining crude oil prices, changes in certain market conditions and decline in our common unit price, collectively caused us to reassess our goodwill allocated to the Wholesale reporting unit for impairment as of December 31, 2015. Our results in 2015 were negatively impacted by tighter crude oil differentials. Certain of the key assumptions in the development of discounted cash flows used to evaluate the Wholesale reporting unit included the expectation of a recovery from tight crude oil differentials and low crude oil prices within 2017. Based on the results of this assessment, we concluded that step two of the quantitative assessment was not necessary and no impairment was required at that time.
During the first quarter ended March 31, 2016 and second quarter ended June 30, 2016, we considered whether there were any change of circumstances or events which would more likely than not reduce the fair value of the Wholesale reporting unit below its carrying amount. While we had then concluded that such events and circumstances had not occurred, we disclosed the possibility that a continuation of low crude oil prices and tight crude oil differentials might cause us to conclude that the timing of a market recovery might be more extended than estimated within our five-year forecast and estimate of terminal values.
We further disclosed in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2015 and in our Quarterly Reports on Forms 10-Q as of March 31, 2016 and June 30, 2016, that a further sustained decline in commodity prices may cause us to reassess our long-lived assets and goodwill for impairment, and could result in future non-cash impairment charges as a result of such impairment assessments. If we are required to perform step two in the future for the Wholesale reporting unit, up to $121.7 million of goodwill assigned to this reporting unit could be written off in the period of such impairment assessment.
During the third quarter ended September 30, 2016, we continued to monitor the extent and timing of future
86
demand. Crude oil prices had remained at lower levels but, more importantly, tight crude oil differentials continued such that we might no longer reasonably include an assumption that the market for crude oil by rail to the coasts might recover sometime within 2017 as previously expected. Factors contributing to our assumption included:
· |
Lack of logistics nominations by one particular customer and the expectations for limited, if any, nominations for the balance of 2016 by that customer; |
· |
A decline in spot crude oil volume indicating weakening demand for our services/assets; |
· |
Increased pipeline capacity out of the Bakken region; and |
· |
The lifting of the export ban, which provides another clearing mechanism for crude oil. |
These market conditions, in addition to declines noted during fiscal year 2015 as well as the first and second quarters of 2016, negatively affected our then current period results and future projections sufficiently to constitute triggering events for the Wholesale reporting unit. Based on our consideration of the factors above, we concluded it was necessary to perform an interim goodwill impairment test for the Wholesale reporting unit pursuant to the guidelines of ASC Topic 350, “Intangibles–Goodwill and Other” (“ASC 350”). We did not extend the interim test for recoverability to the GDSO reporting unit, as the indicators described above were specific to the Wholesale reporting unit.
The process of testing goodwill for impairment involves numerous judgments, assumptions and estimates made by management which inherently reflect a high degree of uncertainty. The impairment test includes either a qualitative assessment or a two-step quantitative assessment. The impairment test’s qualitative assessment is used in order to conclude if it is more likely than not that the reporting unit’s fair value exceeds its carrying value. Factors considered in the qualitative analysis include changes in the business and industry, as well as macro-economic conditions, that would influence the fair value of the reporting unit as well as changes in the carrying values of the reporting unit. In the impairment test’s two-step quantitative assessment, the fair value of each reporting unit is determined and compared to the book value of the reporting unit as determined under step one. If the fair value of the reporting unit is less than the book value, including goodwill, then step two is performed to compare the carrying amount of reporting unit goodwill to the implied fair value of that goodwill. If the carrying amount of reporting unit goodwill exceeds the implied fair value of that goodwill, an impairment loss is recognized for that excess with a charge to operations. We calculate the fair value of each reporting unit using a combination of discounted cash flows and market comparables.
Key assumptions included in the development of the discounted cash flow value for each reporting unit include:
Future commodity volumes and margins. The discounted cash flows are based on a five-year forecast with an estimate of terminal values. In general, the reporting units’ fair values are most sensitive to volume and gross margin assumptions. The Wholesale reporting unit’s cash flows are significantly influenced by the crude oil market, given our 2013 investment in transloading terminals in North Dakota and Oregon.
Discount rate commensurate with the risks involved. We apply a discount rate to our expected cash flows based on a variety of factors, including market and economic conditions, operational risk, regulatory risk and political risk. A higher discount rate decreases the net present value of cash flows.
Future capital requirements. Our estimates of future capital requirements are based upon a combination of authorized spending and internal forecasts.
As of September 30, 2016, as a result of the impairment indicators discussed above, we completed a preliminary assessment of the impairment of the Wholesale reporting unit’s goodwill. As a result of the step one assessment, we concluded that the fair value of the Wholesale reporting unit no longer exceeded its carrying value and as a result, performed a step two assessment to measure the impairment. In step two of the quantitative assessment, the implied fair value of goodwill is determined by assigning the fair value of a reporting unit to all the assets and liabilities of that unit (including any unrecognized intangible assets) as if the reporting unit had been acquired in a business combination. If the carrying amount of a reporting unit’s goodwill exceeds the implied fair value of that goodwill, an impairment loss is recognized for that excess. Upon applying step two of the impairment test, we preliminarily determined that the implied fair value of the Wholesale reporting unit goodwill was $0, and accordingly we recorded an impairment charge of $121.7 million as of September 30, 2016, or all of the goodwill previously allocated to this reporting unit.
87
The following procedures were, among others, the more significant analyses that we completed during the fourth quarter of 2016 to finalize our step one and step two impairment tests:
· |
Final appraisals to determine the estimated fair value of Wholesale, Commercial and GDSO reporting units, including final calculation of discount rates; |
· |
Final appraisals, certain of which were determined by third-party valuation specialists, to determine the estimated fair value of intangible assets, leases, and property and equipment within the Wholesale reporting unit; and |
· |
Final analysis for the Wholesale reporting unit to determine the estimated fair value adjustments required to certain other assets and liabilities of the reporting unit. |
As a result of finalizing the step one assessment, we concluded that no impairment was identified for the GDSO reporting unit and that there was no change to the conclusion that the fair value of the Wholesale reporting unit no longer exceeded its carrying value.
In connection with finalizing the step two impairment test, we made what we considered to be reasonable estimates of each of the above items in order to determine the goodwill impairment loss under the theoretical purchase price allocation required for a step two impairment test. Based on finalizing our assessment, the impairment charges recognized in the third quarter for goodwill and long-lived assets were appropriate and no additional charges were necessary.
During 2014, we completed step-one quantitative assessments for both the Wholesale and GDSO reporting units and no impairment was identified for either reporting unit.
Evaluation of Long-Lived Asset Impairment
Accounting and reporting guidance for long‑lived assets requires that a long‑lived asset (group) be reviewed for impairment when events or changes in circumstances indicate that the carrying amount might not be recoverable. Accordingly, we evaluate long-lived assets for impairment whenever indicators of impairment are identified. If indicators of impairment are present, we assess impairment by comparing the undiscounted projected future cash flows from the long‑lived assets to their carrying value. If the undiscounted cash flows are less than the carrying value, the long‑lived assets will be reduced to their fair value.
We recognized an impairment charge of $23.2 million for the year ended December 31, 2016 relating to long-lived assets used at our crude oil transloading terminals in North Dakota. Additionally, we recognized an impairment charge of approximately $2.9 million during the year ended December 31, 2016 associated with certain long-lived assets at our Albany, New York terminal and all development work in Port Arthur, Texas associated with the initial investments related to expanding our ability to handle crude oil at those locations. The long-term recoverability of these assets has been adversely impacted by a prolonged decline in crude oil prices and crude oil differentials. The method used for determining fair value of these assets relied on a combination of the cost and market approaches. These terminal assets are allocated to the Wholesale segment, and the total impairment charge of $26.1 million is included in goodwill and long-lived asset impairment in the accompanying statements of operations for the year ended December 31, 2016.
During the year ended December 31, 2016, we recognized an impairment charge of $1.9 million associated with the long-lived assets used in supplying compressed natural gas (“CNG”) which is viewed as an alternative fuel to oil. The long-term recoverability of these assets has been adversely impacted by the decline in commodity prices and the cost differential between natural gas and oil. As oil has remained an attractive alternative to CNG due to lower oil prices, the related impact on the CNG operating and cash flows was determined to be an impairment indicator, resulting in the impairment of the CNG long-lived assets during the year ended December 31, 2016. The method used for determining fair value of the CNG assets relied on the market approach. The impairment charge is included in goodwill and long-lived asset impairment in the accompanying statement of operations for the year ended December 31, 2016. On November 1, 2016, we sold our CNG assets.
Additionally, we recognized an impairment charge of $0.3 million for the year ended December 31, 2016
88
associated with the long-lived assets of one discrete site in the GDSO reporting unit. The method used for determining fair value of this GDSO site relied on the market approach. The impairment charge is included in goodwill and long-lived asset impairment in the accompanying statement of operations for the year ended December 31, 2016.
No material impairment charges were recognized in 2015 and 2014.
Environmental and Other Liabilities
We record accrued liabilities for all direct costs associated with the estimated resolution of contingencies at the earliest date at which it is deemed probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of such liability can be reasonably estimated. Costs accrued are estimated based upon an analysis of potential results, assuming a combination of litigation and settlement strategies and outcomes.
Estimated losses from environmental remediation obligations generally are recognized no later than completion of the remedial feasibility study. Loss accruals are adjusted as further information becomes available or circumstances change. Costs of future expenditures for environmental remediation obligations are not discounted to their present value. Recoveries of environmental remediation costs from other parties are recognized when related contingencies are resolved, generally upon cash receipt.
We are subject to other contingencies, including legal proceedings and claims arising out of our business that cover a wide range of matters, including, among others, environmental matters and contract and employment claims. Environmental and other legal proceedings may also include matters with respect to businesses previously owned. Further, due to the lack of adequate information and the potential impact of present regulations and any future regulations, there are certain circumstances in which no range of potential exposure may be reasonably estimated. Please read Item 3, “Legal Proceedings.”
Related Party Transactions
A discussion of related party transactions is included in Note 14 of Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements included elsewhere in this report.
Recent Accounting Pronouncements
A description and related impact expected from the adoption of certain new accounting pronouncements is provided in Note 2 of Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements included elsewhere in this report.
Item 7A. Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk.
Market risk is the risk of loss arising from adverse changes in market rates and prices. The principal market risks to which we are exposed are interest rate risk and commodity risk. We currently utilize an interest rate swap to manage exposure to interest rate risk and various derivative instruments to manage exposure to commodity risk.
Interest Rate Risk
We utilize variable rate debt and are exposed to market risk due to the floating interest rates on our credit agreement. Therefore, from time to time, we utilize interest rate collars, swaps and caps to hedge interest obligations on specific and anticipated debt issuances.
As of December 31, 2016, we had total borrowings outstanding under our credit agreement of $641.3 million. Please read Item 7, “Management’s Discussion and Analysis—Liquidity and Capital Resources—Credit Agreement,” for information on interest rates related to our borrowings. The impact of a 1% increase in the interest rate on this amount of debt would have resulted in an increase in interest expense, and a corresponding decrease in our results of operations, of approximately $6.4 million annually, assuming, however, that our indebtedness remained constant throughout the year.
89
In October 2009, we executed an interest rate swap with a major financial institution. The swap, which became effective on May 16, 2011 and expired on May 16, 2016, was used to hedge the variability in interest payments due to changes in the one‑month LIBOR swap curve with respect to $100.0 million of one‑month LIBOR‑based borrowings on the credit facility at a fixed rate of 3.93%.
In April 2011, we executed an interest rate cap with a major financial institution. The rate cap, which became effective on April 13, 2011 and expired on April 13, 2016, was used to hedge the variability in interest payments due to changes in the one‑month LIBOR rate above 5.5% with respect to $100.0 million of one‑month LIBOR‑based borrowings on the credit facility.
In September 2013, we executed a forward interest rate swap with a major financial institution. The swap, which became effective on October 2, 2013 and expires on October 2, 2018, is used to hedge the variability in cash flows in monthly interest payments due to changes in the one‑month LIBOR swap curve with respect to $100.0 million of one‑month LIBOR‑based borrowings on the credit facility at a fixed rate of 1.819%.
In the aggregate, these hedging instruments historically have been effective in hedging the variability in interest payments due to changes in the one‑month LIBOR swap curve or rate with respect to $300.0 million of one‑month LIBOR‑based borrowings on the credit facility.
In June 2014 and as a result of the issuance of our $375.0 million aggregate principal amount of the 6.25% senior notes due 2022 Notes (see Note 6 of Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements included elsewhere in this report), we determined that maintaining an excess of $300.0 million in principal of outstanding floating‑rate debt was no longer probable. Therefore, we elected to de‑designate our interest rate cap and discontinued the related hedge accounting for this instrument. The interest rate cap, which expired on April 13, 2016, was not in a hedging relationship for 2016 and 2015. Accordingly, all changes in fair value of this instrument were recorded in the consolidated statements of operations through interest expense.
At December 31, 2016, we had in place one interest rate swap agreement which is hedging $100.0 million of variable rate debt and continues to be accounted for as a cash flow hedge.
See Notes 2 and 7 of Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements for additional information on our derivative instruments.
Commodity Risk
We hedge our exposure to price fluctuations with respect to refined petroleum products, renewable fuels, crude oil and gasoline blendstocks in storage and expected purchases and sales of these commodities. The derivative instruments utilized consist primarily of exchange‑traded futures contracts traded on the NYMEX, CME and ICE and over‑the‑counter transactions, including swap agreements entered into with established financial institutions and other credit‑approved energy companies. Our policy is generally to purchase only products for which we have a market and to structure our sales contracts so that price fluctuations do not materially affect our profit. While our policies are designed to minimize market risk, as well as inherent basis risk, exposure to fluctuations in market conditions remains. Except for the controlled trading program discussed below, we do not acquire and hold futures contracts or other derivative products for the purpose of speculating on price changes that might expose us to indeterminable losses.
While we seek to maintain a position that is substantially balanced within our commodity product purchase and sales activities, we may experience net unbalanced positions for short periods of time as a result of variances in daily purchases and sales and transportation and delivery schedules as well as other logistical issues inherent in the business, such as weather conditions. In connection with managing these positions, we are aided by maintaining a constant presence in the marketplace. We also engage in a controlled trading program for up to an aggregate of 250,000 barrels of commodity products at any one point in time. Changes in the fair value of these derivative instruments are recognized in the consolidated statements of operations through cost of sales. In addition, because a portion of our crude oil business may be conducted in Canadian dollars, we may use foreign currency derivatives to minimize the risks of unfavorable exchange rates. These instruments may include foreign currency exchange contracts and forwards. In conjunction with
90
entering into the commodity derivative, we may enter into a foreign currency derivative to hedge the resulting foreign currency risk. These foreign currency derivatives are generally short‑term in nature and not designated for hedge accounting.
We utilize exchange‑traded futures contracts and other derivative instruments to minimize or hedge the impact of commodity price changes on our inventories and forward fixed price commitments. Any hedge ineffectiveness is reflected in our results of operations. We utilize regulated exchanges, including the NYMEX, CME and ICE, which are exchanges for the respective commodities that each trades, thereby reducing potential delivery and supply risks. Generally, our practice is to close all exchange positions rather than to make or receive physical deliveries. With respect to other products such as ethanol, which may not have a correlated exchange contract, we enter into derivative agreements with counterparties that we believe have a strong credit profile, in order to hedge market fluctuations and/or lock‑in margins relative to our commitments.
At December 31, 2016, the fair value of all of our commodity risk derivative instruments and the change in fair value that would be expected from a 10% price increase or decrease are shown in the table below (in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fair Value at |
|
Gain (Loss) |
|
|||||
|
|
December 31, |
|
Effect of 10% |
|
Effect of 10% |
|
|||
|
|
2016 |
|
Price Increase |
|
Price Decrease |
|
|||
Exchange traded derivative contracts |
|
$ |
(70,690) |
|
$ |
(43,714) |
|
$ |
43,714 |
|
Forward derivative contracts |
|
|
(6,031) |
|
|
1,057 |
|
|
(1,057) |
|
|
|
$ |
(76,721) |
|
$ |
(42,657) |
|
$ |
42,657 |
|
The fair values of the futures contracts are based on quoted market prices obtained from the NYMEX, CME and ICE. The fair value of the swaps and option contracts are estimated based on quoted prices from various sources such as independent reporting services, industry publications and brokers. These quotes are compared to the contract price of the swap, which approximates the gain or loss that would have been realized if the contracts had been closed out at December 31, 2016. For positions where independent quotations are not available, an estimate is provided, or the prevailing market price at which the positions could be liquidated is used. All hedge positions offset physical exposures to the physical market; none of these offsetting physical exposures are included in the above table. Price‑risk sensitivities were calculated by assuming an across‑the‑board 10% increase or decrease in price regardless of term or historical relationships between the contractual price of the instruments and the underlying commodity price. In the event of an actual 10% change in prompt month prices, the fair value of our derivative portfolio would typically change less than that shown in the table due to lower volatility in out‑month prices. We have a daily margin requirement to maintain a cash deposit with our brokers based on the prior day’s market results on open futures contracts. The balance of this deposit will fluctuate based on our open market positions and the commodity exchange’s requirements. The brokerage margin balance was $27.7 million at December 31, 2016.
We are exposed to credit loss in the event of nonperformance by counterparties to our exchange‑traded derivative contracts, physical forward contracts and swap agreements. We anticipate some nonperformance by some of these counterparties which, in the aggregate, we do not believe at this time will have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations or cash available for distribution to our unitholders. Exchange‑ traded derivative contracts, the primary derivative instrument utilized by us, are traded on regulated exchanges, greatly reducing potential credit risks. We utilize primarily three clearing brokers, all major financial institutions, for all NYMEX, CME and ICE derivative transactions and the right of offset exists with these financial institutions. Accordingly, the fair value of our exchange‑traded derivative instruments is presented on a net basis in the consolidated balance sheet. Exposure on physical forward contracts and swap agreements is limited to the amount of the recorded fair value as of the balance sheet dates.
Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary Data.
The information required here is included in the report as set forth in the “Index to Financial Statements” on page F‑1.
91
Item 9. Changes in and Disagreements With Accountants on Accounting and Financial Disclosure.
None.
Item 9A. Controls and Procedures.
Disclosure Controls and Procedures
We maintain disclosure controls and procedures that are designed to ensure that the information required to be disclosed by us in the reports we file or submit under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) is recorded, processed, summarized and reported within the time periods specified in SEC rules and forms and that information is accumulated and communicated to our management, including our principal executive officer and principal financial officer, as appropriate, to allow timely decisions regarding required disclosure. Under the supervision and with the participation of our principal executive officer and principal financial officer, management evaluated the effectiveness of our disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Rules 13a‑15(e) or 15d‑15(e) of the Exchange Act). Based on this evaluation, our principal executive officer and principal financial officer concluded that our disclosure controls and procedures were operating and effective as of December 31, 2016.
Internal Control Over Financial Reporting
Management’s Annual Report
We are responsible for establishing and maintaining adequate internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Rules 13a‑15(f) or 15d‑15(f) of the Exchange Act). Our internal control over financial reporting is the process designed to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with GAAP. There are inherent limitations in the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, including the possibility that misstatements may not be prevented or detected. Accordingly, even effective internal controls over financial reporting can provide only reasonable assurance with respect to financial statement preparation.
Under the supervision and with the participation of our principal executive officer and principal financial officer, management conducted an evaluation of the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting based on the framework in Internal Control—Integrated Framework issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (2013 framework). Based on that evaluation, management concluded that our internal control over financial reporting was effective as of December 31, 2016.
The effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2016 has been audited by Ernst & Young LLP, our independent registered public accounting firm, as stated in their report which is included herein.
Changes in Internal Control
There has not been any change in our internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the quarter ended December 31, 2016 that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, our internal control over financial reporting.
92
Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
The Board of Directors of Global GP LLC and Unitholders of Global Partners LP
We have audited Global Partners LP’s internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2016, based on criteria established in Internal Control—Integrated Framework issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (2013 framework) (the COSO criteria). Global Partners LP’s management is responsible for maintaining effective internal control over financial reporting, and for its assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting included in the accompanying Management’s Annual Report. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on the Partnership’s internal control over financial reporting based on our audit.
We conducted our audit in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether effective internal control over financial reporting was maintained in all material respects. Our audit included obtaining an understanding of internal control over financial reporting, assessing the risk that a material weakness exists, testing and evaluating the design and operating effectiveness of internal control based on the assessed risk, and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. We believe that our audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.
A company’s internal control over financial reporting is a process designed to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. A company’s internal control over financial reporting includes those policies and procedures that (1) pertain to the maintenance of records that, in reasonable detail, accurately and fairly reflect the transactions and dispositions of the assets of the partnership; (2) provide reasonable assurance that transactions are recorded as necessary to permit preparation of financial statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, and that receipts and expenditures of the partnership are being made only in accordance with authorizations of management and directors of the partnership; and (3) provide reasonable assurance regarding prevention or timely detection of unauthorized acquisition, use, or disposition of the partnership’s assets that could have a material effect on the financial statements.
Because of its inherent limitations, internal control over financial reporting may not prevent or detect misstatements. Also, projections of any evaluation of effectiveness to future periods are subject to the risk that controls may become inadequate because of changes in conditions, or that the degree of compliance with the policies or procedures may deteriorate.
In our opinion, Global Partners LP has maintained, in all material respects, effective internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2016, based on the COSO criteria.
We also have audited, in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), the 2016 consolidated balance sheets as of December 31, 2016 and 2015 and the related consolidated statements of operations, comprehensive (loss) income, partners’ equity and cash flows for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2016 of Global Partners LP and our report dated March 10, 2017 expressed an unqualified opinion thereon.
/s/ Ernst & Young LLP
Boston, Massachusetts
March 10, 2017
93
94
Item 10. Directors, Executive Officers and Corporate Governance.
Global GP LLC, our general partner, manages our operations and activities on our behalf. Our general partner is not elected by our unitholders and is not subject to re‑election in the future. Affiliates of the Slifka family own 100% of the ownership interests in our general partner. Our general partner is controlled by Richard Slifka and the Alfred A. Slifka 1990 Trust Under Article II-A (the “AS Article II-A Trust”) directly and through their beneficial ownership of entities that own ownership interests in our general partner. Eric Slifka and Andrew Slifka beneficially own interests in our general partner. Unitholders are not entitled to elect the directors of our general partner or directly or indirectly participate in our management or operation. Our general partner is liable, as general partner, for all of our debts (to the extent not paid from our assets), except for indebtedness or other obligations that are made specifically nonrecourse to it. Whenever possible, our general partner intends to incur indebtedness or other obligations that are nonrecourse.
Alfred A. Slifka, former chairman of the board of our general partner, passed away on March 9, 2014. Mr. Slifka’s estate closed effective February 28, 2017 and his interest in our general partner and his beneficially owned interests in Global Partners LP and its affiliates were transferred to the AS Article II-A Trust on that date. Eric Slifka, our President and Chief Executive Officer, and his two siblings are the trustees of the AS Article II-A Trust.
Three members of the board of directors of our general partner serve on a conflicts committee to review specific matters that the board believes may involve conflicts of interest. The conflicts committee determines if the resolution of the conflict of interest is fair and reasonable to us. Members of the conflicts committee may not be officers or employees of our general partner or directors, officers or employees of its affiliates and must meet the independence and experience standards established by the NYSE and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Any matters approved by the conflicts committee will be conclusively deemed to be fair and reasonable to us, approved by all of our partners and not a breach by our general partner of any duties it may owe us or our unitholders. In addition, we have a separately‑designated standing audit committee established in accordance with the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and a compensation committee. The three independent members of the board of directors of our general partner, Messrs. McCool, McKown and Watchmaker, serve as the sole members of the conflicts, audit and compensation committees.
Even though most companies listed on the NYSE are required to have a majority of independent directors serving on the board of directors of the listed company and establish and maintain an audit committee, a compensation committee and a nominating/corporate governance committee, each consisting solely of independent directors, the NYSE does not require a listed limited partnership like us to have a majority of independent directors on the board of directors of our general partner or to establish a compensation committee or a nominating/corporate governance committee.
No member of the audit committee is an officer or employee of our general partner or director, officer or employee of any affiliate of our general partner. Furthermore, each member of the audit committee is independent as defined in the listing standards of the NYSE. The board of directors of our general partner has determined that a member of the audit committee, namely Kenneth Watchmaker, is an “audit committee financial expert” as defined by the SEC.
Among other things, the audit committee is responsible for reviewing our external financial reporting, including reports filed with the SEC, engaging and reviewing our independent auditors and reviewing procedures for internal auditing and the adequacy of our internal accounting controls.
We are managed and operated by the directors and executive officers of our general partner. Our operating personnel are employees of our general partner or certain of our operating subsidiaries.
All of our executive officers devote substantially all of their time to managing our business and affairs, but from time to time perform services for certain of our affiliates. Please read Item 13, “Certain Relationships and Related Transactions, and Director Independence—Relationship of Management with Global Petroleum Corp. and AE Holdings Corp.” Our non‑management directors devote as much time as is necessary to prepare for and attend board of directors and committee meetings.
95
Set forth below are the names, ages (as of March 7, 2017) and titles of persons currently serving as directors and executive officers of our general partner:
Name |
|
Age |
|
Position with Global GP LLC |
|
Richard Slifka |
|
76 |
|
Chairman |
|
Eric Slifka |
|
51 |
|
President, Chief Executive Officer and Director |
|
Andrew Slifka |
|
48 |
|
Executive Vice President and Director |
|
Mark A. Romaine |
|
48 |
|
Chief Operating Officer |
|
Daphne H. Foster |
|
59 |
|
Chief Financial Officer and Director |
|
Edward J. Faneuil |
|
64 |
|
Executive Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary |
|
Charles A. Rudinsky |
|
69 |
|
Executive Vice President and Chief Accounting Officer |
|
David K. McKown |
|
79 |
|
Director |
|
Robert J. McCool |
|
78 |
|
Director |
|
Kenneth I. Watchmaker |
|
74 |
|
Director |
|
Richard Slifka was elected Vice Chairman of the Board of our general partner in March 2005 and became Chairman in March 2014. He had been employed with Global Companies LLC or its predecessors since 1963. Mr. Slifka served as Treasurer and a director of Global Companies LLC since its formation in December 1998. Mr. Slifka also is a shareholder, a director and the President of Global Petroleum Corp., a privately held affiliated company that had owned, operated and leased to us our petroleum products storage terminal located in Revere, Massachusetts until we acquired the terminal in January 2015. Mr. Slifka is a past director of the New England Fuel Institute and currently serves as president of the Independent Fuel Terminal Operators Association. He also currently serves on the board of directors of St. Francis House and the board of trustees of Boston Medical Center. He has been a director of the National Multiple Sclerosis Society since 1988. Mr. Slifka’s extensive knowledge of the oil industry in general and of our history, customers and suppliers make him uniquely qualified to serve as our Chairman of the Board. Richard Slifka is the brother of the late Alfred A. Slifka.
Eric Slifka was elected President, Chief Executive Officer and director of Global GP LLC, the general partner of Global Partners LP, in March 2005. He has been employed with Global Companies LLC or its predecessors since 1987. Mr. Slifka served as President and Chief Executive Officer and a director of Global Companies LLC since July 2004 and as Chief Operating Officer and a director of Global Companies LLC from its formation in December 1998 to July 2004. Prior to 1998, Mr. Slifka held various senior positions in the accounting, supply, distribution and marketing departments of the predecessors to Global Companies LLC. He is a member of the National Petroleum Council and serves on the board of directors of the Energy Policy Research Foundation, Inc., the Massachusetts Youth Committed to Winning and Massachusetts General Hospital President’s Council. Mr. Slifka is the son of the late Alfred A. Slifka and the nephew of Richard Slifka.
Andrew Slifka was elected to serve as a director of our general partner in April 2012 and has been serving as Executive Vice President of Global Partners LP since March 2012 and President of Alliance Energy LLC and its predecessor Alliance Energy Corp. since November 2007. He has been employed with Alliance since 1999. Mr. Slifka served as Vice President and General Manager for the Northeast region (RI, MA, NH, and ME) of Alliance Energy Corp. from 1999 to 2003 and as Executive Vice President from 2003 to November 2007. From 1991 to 1999 Mr. Slifka held various positions in the supply, distribution, and marketing departments with the predecessor of Global Companies LLC, Global Petroleum Corp. He serves on the boards of directors of NECSEMA (New England Convenience Store & Energy Marketers Association), the National Multiple Sclerosis Society, the CF & MS Fund Foundation Inc. and is on the board of trustees of The Rivers School. Additionally, Mr. Slifka is a Member of the ExxonMobil National Council. Mr. Slifka is the son of Richard Slifka and the nephew of the late Alfred A. Slifka.
Mark A. Romaine has been Chief Operating Officer of Global Partners LP since July 2013. Mr. Romaine served as the Senior Vice President of Light Oil Supply and Distribution for Global Partners LP from 2006 until June 2013. He joined a predecessor company to Global in 1998 as Premium Fuels Marketing Manager. His experience in the petroleum products industry includes operations and marketing positions with Plymouth, MA-based Volta Oil. Mr. Romaine received a bachelor’s degree from Providence College and an MBA from the University of Massachusetts.
96
Daphne H. Foster was elected to serve as a director of our general partner in May 2016 and has been Chief Financial Officer of Global Partners LP since July 2013. Ms. Foster served as Treasurer of Global Partners LP from 2010 until June 2013. She joined Global in 2007. Her experience in the petroleum products industry includes several years as a Vice President in the Energy and Utilities Division of Bank of Boston. She started her banking career in 1982 at Bank of Boston and later joined Citizens Financial Group, where she oversaw the Loan Officer Development Program. Ms. Foster received a bachelor's degree and an MBA from Boston University.
Edward J. Faneuil was elected Executive Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary of our general partner in March 2005. He has been employed with Global Companies LLC or its predecessors since 1991. Mr. Faneuil served as General Counsel and Secretary of Global Companies LLC since its formation in December 1998. He previously served as Executive Vice President, Secretary, and General Counsel of Alliance Energy LLC (now a wholly owned subsidiary of Global Partners LP). He currently serves as Executive Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary of Global Petroleum Corporation. Mr. Faneuil received a bachelor’s degree from Trinity College and a J.D. from Suffolk University Law School.
Charles A. Rudinsky was elected Senior Vice President and Chief Accounting Officer of our general partner and of Global Partners LP in March 2005 and was named Executive Vice President and Treasurer in February 2007. Mr. Rudinsky continues to serve as Executive Vice President and Chief Accounting Officer. He has been employed with Global Companies LLC or its predecessors since 1988. Mr. Rudinsky served as Assistant Controller from 1988 to 1997 and as the Senior Controller and Chief Accounting Officer of Global Companies LLC since its formation in December 1998. Mr. Rudinsky earned a bachelor's degree from Boston College and an MBA from Babson College.
David K. McKown was elected to serve as a director of our general partner and as a member of the conflicts committee, the compensation committee and the audit committee of the board of directors of our general partner in October 2005. He has been a Senior Advisor to the Bank Loan Fund of Eaton Vance Management, whose principal business is creating, marketing and managing investment funds and providing investment management services to institutions and individuals, since 2000. In this capacity he serves as a credit analyst and a research source for many of the changes in the accounting area, such as marked to market valuations, changes in bank lending rules and understanding of new financial products and derivatives. Mr. McKown retired in March 2000 having served as a Group Executive with BankBoston since 1993. Mr. McKown has been in the banking industry for over 40 years, where he acquired extensive accounting, financial structuring and negotiation skills, having worked at BankBoston for over 33 years as a Senior Credit Officer, the head of a workout unit, the head of BankBoston’s energy lending group and the head of BankBoston’s real estate and corporate finance departments. He also was a managing director of BankBoston’s private equity unit. Mr. McKown has served on the boards of four public companies and four private companies in a variety of industries. He currently serves as a director of Safety Insurance Group, Drive Shack Inc. and several private companies. Mr. McKown previously served as a member of the board of directors of Equity Office Properties. Mr. McKown’s extensive financial expertise and longstanding work in BankBoston’s energy practice make him well qualified to serve as a director of our general partner.
Robert J. McCool was elected to serve as a director of our general partner, the chair of the conflicts committee of the board of directors of our general partner, and a member of the compensation and audit committees of the board of directors of our general partner in October 2005. He had served as an Advisor to Tetco Inc., a privately held company in the energy industry, for 15 years and has been in the refined petroleum industry for over 40 years. He worked for Mobil Oil for 33 years in various positions including manager, planning and financial analysis, controller, manager U.S. lubricants operations and manager, budget and controls for U.S. acquisitions. Mr. McCool retired in 1998 having served as Executive Vice President responsible for Mobil Oil’s North and South America marketing and refining business. Mr. McCool’s extensive experience with the financial, accounting and managerial aspects of the refined petroleum products industry make him well qualified to serve as a director of our general partner.
Kenneth I. Watchmaker was elected to serve as a director of our general partner, a member of the conflicts and compensation committees of the board of directors of our general partner, and chair of the audit committee of the board of directors of our general partner in October 2005. He subsequently became chair of our general partner's compensation committee as well. He served as Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Reebok International Ltd. from 1995 until March 2006. Mr. Watchmaker joined Reebok International Ltd. in July 1992 as Executive Vice President,
97
Operations and Finance, of the Reebok Brand. Prior to joining Reebok International Ltd., he was an audit partner at Ernst & Young LLP, where he had various responsibilities including regional partner in charge of merger and acquisition services, regional partner in charge of bankruptcy and insolvency services, regional partner in charge of audit services and regional partner in charge of retail industry services. Mr. Watchmaker also serves as a director and the chair of the audit committee of American Biltrite Inc. Mr. Watchmaker's broad audit and accounting experience, as well as his significant corporate and financial experience, make him a valuable member of our board of directors.
Section 16(a) Beneficial Ownership Reporting Compliance
Section 16(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 requires directors and executive officers of our general partner and persons who beneficially own more than 10% of a class of our equity securities registered pursuant to Section 12 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Reporting Persons”) to file certain reports with the SEC and the NYSE concerning their beneficial ownership of such securities. Based solely upon a review of the copies of reports on Forms 3, 4 and 5 and amendments thereto furnished to us, or written representations that no reports on Form 5 were required, we believe that all Reporting Persons complied with all Section 16(a) filing requirements in the year ended December 31, 2016.
Executive Sessions
The board of directors of our general partner holds executive sessions for the non‑management directors on a regular basis without management present. Since the non‑management directors include directors who are not independent directors, the independent directors also meet in separate executive sessions without the other directors or management at least once each year to discuss such matters as the independent directors consider appropriate. In addition, any director may call for an executive session of non‑management or independent directors at any board meeting. A majority of the independent directors selects a presiding director for any such executive session.
Communications with Unitholders, Employees and Others
Unitholders, employees and other interested persons who wish to communicate with the board of directors of our general partner, non‑management or independent directors as a group, a committee of the board or a specific director may do so by transmitting correspondence addressed to the Board of Directors, Name of Director, Group or Committee, c/o Corporate Secretary, Global Partners LP, P.O. Box 9161, 800 South Street, Suite 500, Waltham, MA 02454‑9161, Fax: 781‑398‑4165.
Letters addressed to the board of directors of our general partner in general will be reviewed by the corporate secretary and relayed to the chairman of the board or the chair of the appropriate committee. Letters addressed to the non‑management or independent directors in general will be relayed unopened to the chair of the audit committee. Letters addressed to a committee of the board of directors or a specific director will be relayed unopened to the chair of the committee or the specific director to whom they are addressed. All letters regarding accounting, accounting policies, internal accounting controls and procedures, auditing matters, financial reporting processes or disclosure controls and procedures are to be forwarded by the recipient director to the chair of the audit committee.
Code of Ethics
Our general partner has adopted a code of business conduct and ethics that applies to all officers, directors and employees of our general partner, including the principal executive officer, principal financial officer and principal accounting officer, and to our subsidiaries and their officers, directors and employees.
A copy of the code of business conduct and ethics is available on our website at www.globalp.com or may be obtained without charge upon written request to the General Counsel at: Global Partners LP, P.O. Box 9161, 800 South Street, Suite 500, Waltham, MA 02454‑9161.
98
Corporate Governance Matters
The NYSE requires the Chief Executive Officer of each listed company to certify annually that he is not aware of any violation by the company of the NYSE corporate governance listing standards as of the date of the certification, qualifying the certification to the extent necessary. The Chief Executive Officer of our general partner provided such certification to the NYSE in 2016.
The certifications of our general partner’s Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer required by the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 are included as exhibits to this Annual Report on Form 10‑K.
Item 11. Executive Compensation.
All of our executive officers and substantially all of our employees are employed by our general partner, except for our gasoline station and convenience store employees who are employed by Global Montello Group Corp. (“GMG”), and certain union personnel. Our general partner does not receive any management fee or other compensation for its management of Global Partners LP. Our general partner and its affiliates are reimbursed for expenses incurred on our behalf. These expenses include the costs of employee, executive officer and director compensation and benefits properly allocable to Global Partners LP. Our partnership agreement provides that our general partner will determine the expenses that are allocable to Global Partners LP.
Compensation Discussion and Analysis
We are managed and operated by the executive officers of our general partner. Executive officers of our general partner receive compensation in the form of base salaries, short-term incentive awards (contractual and/or discretionary) and long-term incentive awards. They also are eligible to participate in employee benefit plans and arrangements sponsored by our general partner or its affiliates, including plans that may be established by our general partner or its affiliates in the future. Our named executive officers (defined below) serve as executive officers of our general partner and each of our wholly-owned subsidiaries. The compensation described herein reflects their total compensation for services to us, our general partner and our subsidiaries.
Our “named executive officers” include Mr. Eric Slifka, our Chief Executive Officer (“CEO”), Ms. Daphne H. Foster, our Chief Financial Officer (“CFO”), Mr. Mark A. Romaine, our Chief Operating Officer (“COO”), and the three most highly compensated executive officers of our general partner other than our CEO, CFO and COO during 2016, who were Mr. Andrew Slifka, our Executive Vice President and President of our Gasoline Distribution and Station Operations Division (“GDSO”), Mr. Edward J. Faneuil, our Executive Vice President and General Counsel, and Mr. Charles A. Rudinsky, our Executive Vice President and Chief Accounting Officer. Each of Messrs. Eric Slifka, Andrew Slifka, Faneuil and Romaine and Ms. Foster has an employment agreement with our general partner. Mr. Rudinsky is an employee at will and does not have an employment agreement with our general partner.
The compensation committee of the board of directors of our general partner (the “Compensation Committee”) has direct responsibility for the compensation of our CEO based upon (i) contractual obligations pursuant to the employment agreement between our CEO and our general partner, and (ii) compensation parameters established by the Compensation Committee with respect to salary adjustments, incentive plans and discretionary bonuses, if any. The Compensation Committee also has oversight and approval authority for the compensation of our named executive officers other than our CEO based upon our CEO's recommendations, including awards under any incentive plans in which the named executive officers participate, and our general partner's contractual obligations pursuant to employment agreements with five of our named executive officers.
99
Compensation Objectives
The objectives of our compensation program with respect to our named executive officers are to attract, engage and retain individuals with the requisite knowledge, experience and skill sets required for our future success. Our compensation program is intended to motivate and inspire employee behavior that fosters high performance, and to support our overall business objectives. To achieve these objectives, we aim to provide each named executive officer with a competitive total compensation program. We currently utilize the following compensation components:
· |
Base salaries and benefits designed to attract and retain high caliber employees; |
· |
Short-term, performance-based incentives and discretionary bonus awards designed to focus employees on key business objectives for a particular year, and |
· |
Long-term, equity-based and/or performance-based cash incentive awards designed to support the achievement of our long-term business objectives and the retention of key personnel. |
Compensation Methodology
Our general partner uses a third-party compensation consultant to study and supply market compensation data and to assist our management and the Compensation Committee in formulating competitive compensation plans and arrangements. The Compensation Committee retained BDO USA, LLP (“BDO”) as its outside compensation consultant during 2016.
Under our executive compensation structure, our goal is for our named executive officers’ total compensation to fall between the median (50th percentile) and 75th percentile of competitive total compensation levels, as identified by our compensation consultant's benchmarking results, following any adjustments made to marketplace pay levels in order to account for significant responsibilities that are assigned to our named executive officers and that exceed the scope of responsibilities generally associated with the external benchmark positions to which they are compared, specifically:
· |
Our Executive Vice President and General Counsel plays a critical role in our major transactions and strategic business initiatives, serves as a trusted business advisor to our executive officers, and is responsible for all of our environmental compliance functions, as well as serving as our top legal executive; |
· |
Our Executive Vice President and Chief Accounting Officer, who also serves as co-director of our mergers and acquisitions activities, is responsible for our financial analyses in connection with our acquisition due diligence; and |
· |
Our Executive Vice President who also serves as President of our GDSO Division has executive responsibilities as well as primary oversight of our gasoline and convenience store business. |
Overall Partnership performance and individual performance may cause the targeted compensation levels to be adjusted up or down accordingly.
BDO worked with the Compensation Committee in 2016 to (i) develop and maintain a compensation database and template for use in assessing and reporting LTIP awards for our named executive officers and directors, and (ii) update the performance targets and associated levels of payouts previously contained in our short-term incentive plan for our named executive officers (the “STIP”) for 2016. The plan design of the 2017 STIP is the same as that of the 2016 STIP, except for adjustments to the performance target levels thereunder.
During 2015, BDO worked with the Compensation Committee to provide updated performance targets and related award levels for our general partner’s 2015 STIP to ensure that the plan is fully aligned with our critical business objectives; to research and prepare a competitive compensation assessment for our Chief Financial Officer position and a competitive assessment of methods and levels of compensation for independent board members; and to assist with compensation information related to this Form 10-K.
100
During 2014, BDO provided competitive information and assistance related to the renewal of employment agreements for Messrs. Eric Slifka, Andrew Slifka and Edward Faneuil. Analyses regarding competitive pay practices for our named executive officers and board members were based on information from several groups of companies with various characteristics comparable and relevant to our current size and scope of operations.
Highlights of Compensation Program Policies for Named Executive Officers
· |
A significant portion of total direct compensation for our named executive officers is variable, dependent upon the Partnership's actual performance (e.g., short-term, performance-based incentives and long-term, equity-based incentives); |
· |
Repricing of options and unit appreciation rights is prohibited unless approved by unitholders; |
· |
The Compensation Committee engages the assistance of an independent compensation consultant. |
Elements of Compensation
Our executive compensation structure utilizes complementary components to align our compensation with the needs of our business and to provide for desired levels of pay that competitively compensate our executive management personnel. We administer the program on the basis of total compensation. As described above, our goal is to target total compensation levels (i.e., base salary plus short- and long-term incentives) for our named executive officers to fall between the median (50th percentile) and 75th percentile compensation levels in our competitive marketplace. When we perform above or below our performance goals, we expect that result will be reflected in our compensation levels.
The elements of the 2016 executive officer compensation of our general partner were base salaries, short-term incentive awards, discretionary bonuses, long-term equity incentive awards, retirement, deferred compensation and health benefits, and perquisites consistent with those provided to executive officers generally and as may be approved by the Compensation Committee from time to time.
A description of the components of the compensation program and principles used to guide their administration appears below:
Base Salaries
Each named executive officer’s base salary is a fixed component of compensation for each year. Base salary is designed to compensate executives for the responsibility of the level of the position they hold and sustained individual performance (including experience, scope of responsibility, results achieved and future potential). The base salaries for five of our named executive officers are set by the terms of their respective employment agreements; the base salary for the named executive officer without an employment agreement is set in accordance with our CEO’s recommendation, using salary range information from BDO, and as approved by the Compensation Committee. Base salaries for our named executive officers did not change in 2016. The base salaries in effect as of the end of 2016 for our named executive officers were as follows: $800,000 for Mr. Eric Slifka, $500,000 for Mr. Romaine; $450,000 for Mr. Faneuil; $425,000 for Mr. Andrew Slifka; $400,000 for Ms. Foster; and $273,000 for Mr. Rudinsky. Effective January 1, 2017, Ms. Foster’s base salary was increased to $450,000.
Short-Term Incentive Plans
Our general partner established a cash bonus pool for 2016 to fund short-term incentive awards for each of our named executive officers. Target awards under our general partner’s 2016 STIP included a performance-based component, for which 50% of the cash bonus pool was available (the “STIP Performance Component”), and a discretionary component, for which the other 50% of the cash bonus pool was available (the “STIP Discretionary Component”). Incentive awards earned under the 2016 STIP were based on the Partnership’s actual performance in relation to a specified objective for distributable cash flow established by the Compensation Committee in March 2016 (the “DCF objective”). Under the STIP, for purposes of determining whether a specified target was achieved, “distributable cash flow” (a non-GAAP financial measure used by management) means our net income plus depreciation
101
and amortization, less our maintenance capital expenditures (“DCF”). DCF is discussed under “Results of Operations—Evaluating Our Results of Operations” and reconciled to its most directly comparable GAAP financial measures under “Results of Operations—Key Performance Indicators” in Item 7, “Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Conditions and Results of Operations.”
Under the STIP, each of our named executive officers was assigned an incentive target value expressed as a percentage of his or her base salary. The 2016 incentive target values were: 100% (or $800,000) for Mr. Eric Slifka; 100% (or $500,000) for Mr. Romaine; 100% (or $450,000) for Mr. Faneuil; 75% (or $300,000) for Ms. Foster; 62% (or $265,000) for Mr. Andrew Slifka; and 41% (or $112,500) for Mr. Rudinsky. 50% of the incentive target value for each named executive officer was allocated to his or her STIP Performance Component and 50% was allocated to his or her STIP Discretionary Component.
STIP Performance Component (50% of the incentive target value).—Under the terms of the STIP, 100% of the STIP Performance Component is earned when the DCF objective is achieved. However, the STIP also provides for an increased payout under the STIP Performance Component when the DCF objective is exceeded, a reduced payout under the STIP Performance Component when the DCF objective is not achieved but exceeds a certain DCF minimum threshold, and no payout if the STIP Performance Component minimum threshold is not achieved. Such increases and reductions in payouts are determined in accordance with an award payout grid adopted by the Compensation Committee at the time that the STIP was established. In 2016 we failed to achieve the minimum threshold of DCF required to qualify for any incentive payout under the STIP Performance Component, and therefore no payout of the STIP Performance Component was earned for 2016.
STIP Discretionary Component (50% of the incentive target value).—The STIP Discretionary Component is intended to be used as a discretionary award, allowing the Compensation Committee to analyze other factors that it may elect to use for determining the STIP Discretionary Component. Such factors may include, without limitation, market factors and significant acquisitions, developments and ventures accomplished by us, management of our business in the face of adverse market conditions and, as may be applicable, the contributions of any or all of the named executive officers. Mr. Eric Slifka’s evaluation of our named executive officers’ performance in 2016 included the recognition that both their individual and collective performance were outstanding, that they supported each other as a team as they undertook initiatives to position the Partnership to make it stronger going forward, and that the Partnership’s performance in 2016 was not an indication that our named executive officers underperformed.
In considering whether to grant the 2016 STIP Discretionary Component awards, the Compensation Committee recognized that our business performance was significantly below that of the prior year due to: the prolonged decline in crude oil prices and tighter crude oil differentials; the negative impact of fixed costs associated primarily with our significantly underutilized leased railcar fleet; and significantly warmer weather. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the following actions were undertaken by us under the leadership of Mr. Eric Slifka and executed by our named executive officers to strategically position the Partnership by strengthening its balance sheet and enhancing its liquidity in order to be able to withstand crude-related headwinds and take advantage of future opportunities. These strategic initiatives, which were performed without additional manpower or resources, included:
· |
In January 2016, as part of our expense management initiatives, we reduced SG&A overhead by reducing our workforce by approximately seventy (70) people, which equated to approximately 8% of our headcount, excluding employees at our convenience stores. |
· |
In April 2016, we expanded our gasoline station and convenience-store network in Western Massachusetts with the addition of 22 leased retail sites. Located in the Pittsfield and Springfield areas, these sites were added through long-term leases. |
· |
In April 2016, we initiated an ongoing sealed bid sale for eighty six (86) non-strategic gasoline stations and convenience stores located in Connecticut, Massachusetts, Maryland, Maine, New Hampshire, New York and Rhode Island. |
· |
On June 29, 2016, we completed a sale and leaseback transaction with respect to thirty (30) gasoline stations and convenience stores located in Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Rhode |
102
Island for an aggregate total purchase price of approximately $63.5 million. The proceeds from the transaction were used to reduce indebtedness outstanding under our revolving credit facility. |
· |
On August 22, 2016, we streamlined our retail portfolio by completing our sale of thirty (30) non-strategic gasoline stations and convenience stores located in New York and Pennsylvania for approximately $40 million. We acquired these retail assets on January 7, 2015 in connection with our purchase of Warren Equities, Inc. and its subsidiaries. Approximately $28.0 million of the proceeds were used to pay down debt under our revolving credit facility. In connection with the closing, the parties entered into long term supply contracts for branded and unbranded gasoline and other petroleum products. |
· |
On November 1, 2016, we completed the disposition of certain of our compressed natural gas-related assets and customer contracts for approximately $1.5 million. |
· |
On December 21, 2016, we further reduced overhead through the voluntary early termination of a sublease for 1,610 railcars leased from a third party, resulting in a one-time expense of $80.7 million. The early termination represents a discount of $10.2 million in railcar lease payments that we otherwise would have been obligated to pay over the next three years. |
· |
On December 30, 2016, we entered into an asset purchase agreement for the sale of our natural gas marketing and electricity brokerage assets, which sale was consummated on February 1, 2017. |
· |
In order to properly resize our credit facilities to more adequately reflect our needs in the current environment, reduce our costs, and provide adequate liquidity, we amended our credit agreement in 2016 to, among other things, (i) reduce its working capital revolving credit facility from $1.0 billion to $900.0 million and its revolving credit facility from $775.0 million to $575.0 million; (ii) permit the use of borrowings to pay for $77 million of the expenses associated with the voluntary early termination of the railcar sublease; (iii) accelerate the step-down in the combined total leverage ratio from 5.50 times to 5.00 times, effective with the fiscal quarter ending December 31, 2016; (iv) allow for the sale of intangible assets as well as real estate, subject to certain limitations contained in the credit agreement; and (v) carve out certain one-time charges from the definitions used in our covenants with respect to EBITDA (as defined in the credit agreement). |
Taking into account Mr. Slifka’s assessment, the Partnership’s results of operations for 2016, as well as the Compensation Committee’s review of the individual performance of each of our named executive officers in 2016, the Compensation Committee awarded our named executive officers 100% of their respective STIP Discretionary Components for 2016, specifically as follows: $400,000 for Mr. Eric Slifka; $250,000 for Mr. Romaine; $225,000 for Mr. Faneuil; $150,000 for Ms. Foster; $132,500 for Mr. Andrew Slifka; and $56,250 for Mr. Rudinsky.
2017 Short-Term Incentive Plan.—In 2017, the Compensation Committee, with the assistance of its compensation consultant, BDO, used our 2017 business plan as a basis for creating the 2017 Short-Term Incentive Plan. The 2017 STIP establishes a target incentive percentage for each participant ranging from 41% to 100% of base salary representing the same target percentages used during 2016 for each of the named executive officers with the exception of Ms. Foster, whose target percentage was increased from 75% of her base salary in 2016 to 89% of her base salary in 2017; Mr. Andrew Slifka, whose target percentage was increased from 62% of his base salary in 2016 to 71% of his base salary in 2017; and Mr. Rudinsky, whose target percentage was increased from 41% of his base salary in 2016 to 48% of his base salary in 2017. Awards under the 2017 STIP may range from 0% to 200% of each participant's target incentive percentage. The weighting of the STIP Performance Component and STIP Discretionary Component in the 2017 STIP remain 50% and 50%, respectively, the same as in the 2016 STIP.
· |
The 2017 Performance Component (50% of the incentive target value)—The Compensation Committee decreased the DCF objective for 2017, subject to adjustment by the Compensation Committee for certain acquisitions and events during 2017 that the Compensation Committee may, in its sole discretion, determine to have caused unusual, one-time increases or decreases in DCF. Awards granted by the Compensation Committee may range from 0% to 200% of a plan participant's 2017 STIP Performance Component. A minimum of 80.1% of the 2017 DCF objective must be achieved before participants would earn any portion of the 2017 STIP Performance Component. Under the 2017 STIP, a participant's incentive opportunity increases to a maximum of 200% of the STIP Performance Component at 119.8% of |
103
the 2017 DCF objective, and is determined on a quantitative basis solely based on our actual DCF for 2017. |
· |
The 2017 Discretionary Component (50% of the incentive target value)—The Compensation Committee has discretion in determining the 2017 STIP Discretionary Component for any participant under the 2017 STIP, within a range of 0% to 200% of the 2017 STIP Discretionary Component, and based upon (i) the Compensation Committee’s consideration of management's performance over the course of the 2017 plan year; (ii) the CEO’s assessment of the other named executive officers; (iii) our overall financial results for the year in relation to our business plan; and (iv) any significant mitigating factor(s) that may have influenced a plan participant’s performance, positively or negatively. The objective of considering these factors is to arrive at a decision that best reflects the Compensation Committee’s overall assessment of management's performance on an individual basis. The Compensation Committee believes that when combined with the STIP Performance Component, the results will more accurately reflect a plan participant's performance in light of the relevant factors. |
Annual Bonuses—Discretionary
Our compensation program for named executive officers contains a provision for the Compensation Committee to award a discretionary bonus to recognize significant contributions made by an executive in the course of the year. These are one-time awards and not associated with any of our incentive plans. The Compensation Committee may make discretionary bonus awards to our CEO. Our CEO may also recommend discretionary bonus awards for all other named executive officers for consideration and approval by the Compensation Committee for similar purposes.
The Compensation Committee did not award any discretionary bonus payments in respect of our named executive officers’ service in 2016 or in 2015. The Compensation Committee awarded Messrs. Eric Slifka, Romaine and Faneuil, Ms. Foster, Mr. Andrew Slifka and Mr. Rudinsky special discretionary bonuses in the amounts of $600,000, $500,000, $400,000, $300,000, $200,000 and $100,000, respectively, for their service in 2014.
Long-Term Incentive Plans
No equity grants were made under the Global Partners LP Long-Term Incentive Plan (“LTIP”) to any of our named executive officers in respect of their service in 2016, 2015 or 2014.
2012 CEO Performance-Based Cash Incentive Plan.—Mr. Eric Slifka’s 2012-2014 employment agreement with our general partner included provisions for a long-term performance-based cash incentive plan. The long-term performance-based cash incentive plan was based solely on the achievement of growth in distributions to our unitholders in respect of the three-year term of Mr. Slifka’s 2012-2014 employment agreement. The award was calculated using (i) the sum of all distributions paid to our unitholders in respect of the three-year period from January 1, 2012 through December 31, 2014 (which distributions were paid during the period from May 2012 through February 2015), inclusive, and (ii) an annualized $2.00 per unit (subject to adjustment by the Compensation Committee as set forth in Mr. Slifka's employment agreement) baseline against which Mr. Slifka's performance was measured. Mr. Slifka earned $3,450,000 in 2015 under this incentive plan.
2015 CEO Performance-Based Cash Incentive Plan.—Mr. Eric Slifka’s 2015-2017 employment agreement with our general partner includes provisions for a long-term performance-based cash incentive plan. This plan replaced the plan for the 2012-2014 period described above under “—2012 CEO Performance-Based Cash Incentive Plan” and is also based on the achievement of growth in distributions to our unitholders in respect of the three-year term of Mr. Slifka's 2015-2017 employment agreement. This award will be calculated using (i) the sum of all distributions paid to our unitholders in respect of the three-year period from January 1, 2015 through December 31, 2017 (which distributions are anticipated to be paid during the period from May 2015 through February 2018), inclusive, and (ii) an annualized $2.66 per unit (subject to adjustment by the Compensation Committee as set forth in Mr. Slifka's employment agreement) baseline against which Mr. Slifka's performance will be measured.
104
Retirement and Health Benefits; Perquisites
Global Partners 401(k) Savings and Profit Sharing Plan
The Global Partners LP 401(k) Savings and Profit Sharing Plan (the “Global 401(k) Plan”) permits all eligible employees to make voluntary pre-tax contributions to the plan, subject to applicable tax limitations. The Global 401(k) Plan provides for employer matching contributions equal to 100% of elective deferrals up to the first 3% of eligible compensation plus 50% of elective deferrals up to the next 2% of eligible compensation. In 2016, all employees were eligible to participate in the Global 401(k) Plan other than employees who were (1) not yet 21 years of age, (2) covered by a collective bargaining agreement that does not provide for employees to be covered by the Global 401(k) Plan or (3) nonresident aliens. New employees may begin to contribute to the Global 401(k) Plan on the first day of the month following their respective dates of hire, although they are not eligible to receive matching payments under the Global 401(k) Plan until they have been employed by our general partner or one of our operating subsidiaries for six months. Eligible employees may elect to contribute up to 100% of their compensation to the plan for each plan year. Employee contributions are subject to annual dollar limitations, which are adjusted periodically for changes in the cost of living. Participants in the plan are always fully vested in any matching contributions under the plan; however, discretionary profit sharing contributions are subject to a six-year vesting schedule. The plan is intended to be tax-qualified under Section 401(a) of the Code so that contributions to the plan, and income earned on plan contributions, are not taxable to employees until withdrawn from the plan, and so that our general partner's contributions, if any, will be deductible when made.
Pension Benefits
Each of our named executive officers is eligible to participate in our general partner's pension plan in accordance with our general partner's policies and on the same general basis as other employees of our general partner. Under our general partner's pension plan, an employee becomes fully vested in his or her pension benefits after completing five years of service or, if earlier, upon termination due to death or disability. Please read “Other Benefits—Pension Benefits” for information with respect to eligibility standards and calculations of estimated annual pension benefits payable upon retirement under the pension plan. Our general partner's pension plan was frozen on December 31, 2009.
Prior to March 1, 2012, Mr. Andrew Slifka was employed by Alliance Energy LLC (“Alliance”) and participates in the Alliance Energy LLC Pension Plan in accordance with Alliance’s policies and on the same general basis as other employees of Alliance not excluded by the terms of the plan. On March 1, 2012, sponsorship of the Alliance Energy LLC Pension Plan was transferred to GMG and the plan was renamed as the GMG Pension Plan (as defined and described below under “Other Benefits—Pension Benefits”). An employee is fully vested in benefits under the GMG Pension Plan after completing five years of service or, if earlier, upon termination due to death or disability. Please read “Other Benefits—Pension Benefits” for information with respect to eligibility standards and calculations of estimated annual pension benefits payable upon retirement under the GMG Pension Plan. The GMG Pension Plan was frozen on May 15, 2012.
Other Benefits
Each of our named executive officers is eligible to participate in our general partner's health insurance plans and other employee benefit plans in accordance with our general partner’s policies and on the same general basis as other employees of our general partner.
Additional perquisites for our named executive officers may include payment of premiums for supplemental life and/or long-term disability insurance, automobile fringe benefits, club membership dues and payment of fees for professional financial planning, tax and/or legal advice.
105
Employment Agreements
Each of Messrs. Eric Slifka, Andrew Slifka, Faneuil and Romaine and Ms. Foster has an employment agreement with our general partner. We believe that the post-termination and change in control payments in the employment agreements allow our named executive officers to focus on making business decisions that maximize our interests and the interests of our unitholders without allowing personal considerations to influence the decision-making process. Please read “Potential Payments upon Termination or Change of Control” for a discussion of the provisions in each employment agreement relating to termination, change in control and related payment obligations.
Relationship of Compensation Elements to Compensation Objectives
We use base salaries to provide financial stability and to compensate our executive officers for fulfillment of their respective job duties.
We use a short-term incentive plan with performance-based and discretionary components to align a significant portion of our executive officers' compensation with annual business performance and success, and to provide rewards and recognition for key business outcomes such as achieving increased quarterly distributions in line with our financial results, expanding our distribution, marketing and sales of petroleum products, expanding our gasoline station and convenience store assets and the geographic markets that we serve, and diversifying our product mix to enhance profitability and effectively managing our business. Short-term performance-based incentives also allow flexibility to reward performance and individual success consistent with such criteria as may be established from time to time by our CEO and the Compensation Committee.
Our long-term incentive plans (the LTIP and the performance-based cash incentive plans applicable to Mr. Eric Slifka) provide incentives and reward eligible participants for the achievement of long-term objectives, facilitate the retention of key employees by aligning their incentives with our long-term performance, continue to make our compensation mix more competitive, and align the interests of management with those of our unitholders.
We offer a mix of traditional perquisites such as automobile fringe benefits and country/golf club memberships, and additional benefits, such as payment of professional financial planning and tax advice fees, that are tailored to address our executive officers’ individual needs, to facilitate the performance of their job duties and to be competitive with the total compensation packages available to executive officers generally.
Tax Deductibility of Compensation
With respect to the deduction limitations imposed under Section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”), we are a limited partnership and do not meet the definition of a “corporation” under Section 162(m). Accordingly, such limitations do not apply to compensation paid to our named executive officers.
Compensation Committee Report
The Compensation Committee has reviewed and discussed the Compensation Discussion and Analysis required by Item 402(b) of Regulation S-K with management. Based upon such review, the related discussions and such other matters deemed relevant and appropriate by the Compensation Committee, the Compensation Committee has recommended to the board of directors that the Compensation Discussion and Analysis be included in this Form 10-K.
Kenneth I. Watchmaker (Chairman)
Robert J. McCool
David McKown
March 8, 2017
106
Compensation Committee Interlocks and Insider Participation
Since the formation of Global GP LLC and throughout the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, the Compensation Committee of Global GP LLC's board of directors has comprised of Robert J. McCool, David K. McKown and Kenneth I. Watchmaker, none of whom are officers or employees of our general partner or any of its affiliates. Mr. Alfred A. Slifka served as the Chairman of the board of directors of our general partner until his death on March 9, 2014. Mr. Richard Slifka, who served as Vice-Chairman of our general partner’s board of directors since its inception, became Chairman effective March 12, 2014 and is an employee of Global Petroleum Corp., an entity which is owned by Mr. Richard Slifka and a trust for the beneficiaries of Mr. Alfred A. Slifka.
Compensation of Named Executive Officers
The following table sets forth certain information with respect to compensation during 2016, 2015 and 2014 of our named executive officers.
Summary Compensation Table
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Change in |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pension Value |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
and Deferred |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Non‑Equity |
|
Nonqualified |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Incentive Plan |
|
Compensation |
|
All Other |
|
|
|
Name and Principal |
|
|
|
Salary |
|
Bonus |
|
Compensation |
|
Earnings |
|
Compensation |
|
Total |
|
Position |
|
Year |
|
($)(1) |
|
($) (2) |
|
($) (3) |
|
($) (4) |
|
($)(5) |
|
($) |
|
Eric Slifka |
|
2016 |
|
800,000 |
|
— |
|
400,000 |
|
44,008 |
|
65,961 |
|
1,309,969 |
|
President and CEO |
|
2015 |
|
800,000 |
|
— |
|
— |
|
— |
|
87,850 |
|
887,850 |
|
|
|
2014 |
|
800,000 |
|
600,000 |
|
4,938,000 |
|
55,552 |
|
93,212 |
|
6,486,764 |
|
Mark A. Romaine |
|
2016 |
|
500,000 |
|
— |
|
250,000 |
|
17,988 |
|
40,109 |
|
808,097 |
|
Chief Operating Officer |
|
2015 |
|
500,000 |
|
— |
|
— |
|
— |
|
36,016 |
|
536,016 |
|
|
|
2014 |
|
500,000 |
|
500,000 |
|
930,000 |
|
46,446 |
|
35,741 |
|
2,012,187 |
|
Edward J. Faneuil |
|
2016 |
|
450,000 |
|
— |
|
225,000 |
|
— |
|
47,466 |
|
722,466 |
|
EVP, General Counsel |
|
2015 |
|
450,000 |
|
— |
|
— |
|
— |
|
44,762 |
|
494,762 |
|
and Secretary |
|
2014 |
|
376,000 |
|
400,000 |
|
651,000 |
|
165,524 |
|
40,340 |
|
1,632,864 |
|
Daphne H. Foster |
|
2016 |
|
400,000 |
|
— |
|
150,000 |
|
2,398 |
|
33,483 |
|
585,881 |
|
Chief Financial Officer |
|
2015 |
|
400,000 |
|
— |
|
— |
|
— |
|
25,869 |
|
425,869 |
|
|
|
2014 |
|
300,000 |
|
300,000 |
|
372,000 |
|
5,531 |
|
13,714 |
|
991,245 |
|
Andrew Slifka |
|
2016 |
|
425,000 |
|
— |
|
132,500 |
|
22,695 |
|
61,645 |
|
641,840 |
|
EVP and President of |
|
2015 |
|
425,000 |
|
— |
|
— |
|
— |
|
51,686 |
|
476,686 |
|
GDSO Division |
|
2014 |
|
425,000 |
|
200,000 |
|
372,000 |
|
60,012 |
|
52,251 |
|
1,109,263 |
|
Charles A. Rudinsky |
|
2016 |
|
273,000 |
|
— |
|
56,250 |
|
— |
|
37,810 |
|
367,060 |
|
EVP and Chief |
|
2015 |
|
273,000 |
|
— |
|
— |
|
— |
|
34,298 |
|
307,298 |
|
Accounting Officer |
|
2014 |
|
273,000 |
|
100,000 |
|
209,250 |
|
19,923 |
|
30,742 |
|
632,915 |
|
(1) |
The above table reflects the $800,000 base salary paid to Mr. Eric Slifka in (i) 2014 pursuant to his 2012-2014 employment agreement with our general partner, which became effective January 1, 2012, and (ii) 2015 and 2016 pursuant to his 2015-2017 employment agreement. |
(2) |
No discretionary bonuses were paid to our named executive officers for services performed during 2016 or 2015. Messrs. Eric Slifka, Romaine and Faneuil, Ms. Foster, Mr. Andrew Slifka and Mr. Rudinsky were paid discretionary bonuses of $600,000, $500,000, $400,000, $300,000, $200,000 and $100,000, respectively, for services performed during 2014, which discretionary bonuses were paid in 2015 along with payments they received in 2015 for services performed during 2014 under the 2014 Short-Term Incentive Plan. |
(3) |
Amounts reported in this column reflect (a) the bonuses paid to each of the named executive officers for services performed during 2016, 2015 and 2014 which were determined in accordance with our general partner’s Short-Term Incentive Plans described above under “Elements of Compensation—Short-Term Incentive Plans” and (b) for Mr. Eric Slifka, $3,450,000, which was earned under the long-term performance-based cash incentive plan under his |
107
2012-2014 employment agreement and is described above under “Elements of Compensation—Long-Term Incentive Plans”. |
(4) |
In 2016, (a) the present value of Mr. Faneuil’s pension and deferred nonqualified compensation earnings decreased by $70,720 as a result of higher interest rates used to calculate deferred compensation benefits and payments paid to Mr. Faneuil pursuant to his deferred compensation plans, and (b) the present value of Mr. Rudinsky’s pension decreased by $62,624 as a result of payments paid to Mr. Rudinsky from his pension plan account. In 2015, as a result of higher interest rates used to calculate pension benefits, the present values of the pensions of Messrs. Eric Slifka, Romaine and Faneuil, Ms. Foster, Mr. Andrew Slifka and Mr. Rudinsky decreased by $41,884, $50,235, $321,081, $2,551, $73,459 and $75,919, respectively. Additionally, the present value of Mr. Faneuil’s pension in 2015 reflected a reduction equal to the net present value of his vested SERP, which was $159,355. These decreases are shown as a $0 positive change in actuarial value for those years under the column labeled “Change in Pension Value and Nonqualified Deferred Compensation Earnings”. |
(5) |
The 2016 amounts in this column are described further in the All Other Compensation table below. |
All Other Compensation Table
The following table describes each component of the “All Other Compensation” column of the Summary Compensation Table for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016:
|
|
|
|
Club Membership Dues, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Employer |
|
Legal Fees, and Professional |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Contributions to |
|
Financial Planning and |
|
Personal |
|
Total All |
|
|
|
Global 401(k) Plan |
|
Tax Advice Fees |
|
Benefits (1) |
|
Other Compensation |
|
Name |
|
($) |
|
($) |
|
($) |
|
($) |
|
Eric Slifka |
|
5,333 |
|
22,500 |
|
38,128 |
|
65,961 |
|
Mark A. Romaine |
|
6,667 |
|
— |
|
33,442 |
|
40,109 |
|
Edward J. Faneuil |
|
9,000 |
|
17,109 |
|
21,357 |
|
47,466 |
|
Daphne H. Foster |
|
10,600 |
|
— |
|
22,883 |
|
33,483 |
|
Andrew Slifka |
|
9,917 |
|
30,100 |
|
21,628 |
|
61,645 |
|
Charles A. Rudinsky |
|
10,600 |
|
— |
|
27,210 |
|
37,810 |
|
(1) |
The amounts in this column include the estimated incremental cost of an automobile provided by us for the named executive officer’s use; medical and dental premiums paid by us; and life insurance, long-term disability and supplemental disability premiums paid by us. |
Grants of Plan-Based Awards
The following table sets forth information concerning criteria for the grant of plan-based awards for the calendar year 2016 to our named executive officers under the STIP (including the minimum threshold, target and maximum possible payout amounts, depending upon our financial performance in 2016). No equity awards were made under the LTIP to any of our named executive officers in 2016.
Grants of Plan‑Based Awards
|
|
Estimated Possible Payouts Under |
|
||||
|
|
Non—Equity Incentive Plan Awards (1) |
|
||||
|
|
Minimum |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Threshold |
|
|
|
Maximum |
|
Name |
|
($) |
|
Target ($) |
|
($) |
|
Eric Slifka |
|
40,000 |
|
800,000 |
|
1,600,000 |
|
Mark A. Romaine |
|
25,000 |
|
500,000 |
|
1,000,000 |
|
Edward J. Faneuil |
|
22,500 |
|
450,000 |
|
900,000 |
|
Daphne H. Foster |
|
15,000 |
|
300,000 |
|
600,000 |
|
Andrew Slifka |
|
13,250 |
|
265,000 |
|
530,000 |
|
Charles A. Rudinsky |
|
5,625 |
|
112,500 |
|
225,000 |
|
(1) |
For calendar year 2016, each named executive officer’s STIP award consisted of the STIP Performance Component |
108
(weighed 50%) and the STIP Discretionary Component (weighted 50%). Amounts shown represent the “threshold,” “target” and “maximum” amounts payable under the STIP awards. During 2017, the Compensation Committee determined that no portion of the STIP Performance Component was earned by the named executive officers for calendar year 2016. Actual payout of the STIP Discretionary Component for calendar year 2016 is shown in the “Non-Equity Incentive Plan Compensation” column of the Summary Compensation Table above. |
Outstanding Equity Awards at Fiscal Year End
The following table presents the full amount of the equity awards held by our named executive officers as of December 31, 2016, which consist solely of phantom units granted under the LTIP. The awards shown on the table below were the only equity awards held by the named executive officers at the end of the last fiscal year:
|
|
Equity Incentive Plan Awards |
|
||
|
|
|
|
Market or Payout |
|
|
|
Number of |
|
Value of |
|
|
|
Unearned Shares, |
|
Unearned Shares, |
|
|
|
Units or Other |
|
Units or Other |
|
|
|
Rights That Have |
|
Rights That Have |
|
|
|
Not Vested (#) (1) |
|
Not Vested ($) (2) |
|
Eric Slifka |
|
127,259 |
|
2,475,188 |
|
Mark A. Romaine |
|
57,012 |
|
1,108,883 |
|
Edward J. Faneuil |
|
76,356 |
|
1,485,124 |
|
Daphne H. Foster |
|
21,889 |
|
425,741 |
|
Andrew Slifka |
|
29,537 |
|
574,495 |
|
Charles A. Rudinsky |
|
— |
|
— |
|
(1) |
The units granted to each named executive officer other than Mr. Rudinsky vest over a six-year period, with one-third of the units granted scheduled to vest on each of July 1, 2017, July 1, 2018 and July 1, 2019. The units granted to Mr. Rudinsky vested over a three and one-half year period, with one-third of the units granted having vested on December 31, 2014, one-third having vested on December 31, 2015 and one-third having vested on December 31, 2016. |
(2) |
The market values of the equity awards shown in the table above were calculated based on the closing price of $19.45 per common unit on December 30, 2016, the last day that the market was open in 2016. |
Please read “Elements of Compensation—Long-Term Incentive Plans” for a discussion of these phantom unit awards.
Units Vested in the 2016 Fiscal Year
The following table presents phantom units awarded to the named executive officers on June 27, 2013 and September 23, 2013 that vested during the year ended December 31, 2016.
|
|
Equity Incentive Plan Awards |
|
||
|
|
Number of |
|
|
|
|
|
Vested |
|
Market Value of Vested |
|
|
|
Phantom Units |
|
Phantom Units (#) ($) (1) |
|
Charles A. Rudinsky |
|
2,122 |
|
41,273 |
|
(1) |
These units vested on December 31, 2016. The market values of the equity awards shown in the table above were calculated based on the closing price of $19.45 per common unit on December 30, 2016, was the last day on which the market was open in 2016. |
Nonqualified Deferred Compensation
Mr. Romaine previously agreed to receive certain bonus payments in installments over three years for each
109
bonus. Because all such installment payments were paid in full to Mr. Romaine prior to the commencement of 2016, there is no nonqualified deferred compensation to report and the Nonqualified Deferred Compensation table has been eliminated.
Deferred Compensation Agreements
On December 31, 2008, our general partner and Edward J. Faneuil entered into a deferred compensation agreement pursuant to which Mr. Faneuil will be subject to terms and conditions relating to confidential information, non-solicitation and non-competition, as provided therein (the “Global Deferred Compensation Agreement”). Please read “Potential Payments upon Termination or Change of Control” for a discussion of the provisions in Mr. Faneuil's deferred compensation agreement relating to termination, change of control and related payment obligations.
On September 23, 2009, Alliance and Mr. Faneuil entered into a deferred compensation agreement pursuant to which Mr. Faneuil will be subject to terms and conditions relating to confidential information, non-solicitation and non-competition, as provided therein (the “Alliance Deferred Compensation Agreement”). Please read “Potential Payments upon Termination or Change of Control” for a discussion of the provisions in Mr. Faneuil’s deferred compensation agreement relating to termination, change of control and related payment obligations.
Supplemental Executive Retirement Agreement
On December 31, 2009, our general partner entered into a SERP agreement with Edward J. Faneuil. Mr. Faneuil's SERP benefit became fully vested on December 31, 2014. The value of the SERP benefit to be provided under the agreement, expressed as a single lump sum payment, is $159,355 for Mr. Faneuil.
Potential Payments upon a Change of Control or Termination
The following tables show potential payments to each of our named executive officers under existing contracts, agreements, plans or arrangements, whether written or unwritten, for various scenarios involving a change of control or termination of employment of each such named executive officer assuming a December 31, 2016 termination date. This table does not take into account discretionary decisions regarding compensation made by the Compensation Committee and the board of directors of our general partner made after December 31, 2016. Amounts reflected in the table below with respect to LTIP awards were calculated based on the closing price of our common units of $19.45 per unit as of December 30, 2016 (which was the last day on which the market was open in 2016).
LTIP Awards. On June 27, 2013, the Compensation Committee made grants of 127,259, 76,356, 57,012, 29,537 and 21,889 phantom units under the LTIP, respectively, to Messrs. Eric Slifka, Faneuil, Romaine and Andrew Slifka and Ms. Foster. Upon a change of control event, all outstanding phantom units that were granted in 2013 to Messrs. Eric Slifka, Faneuil, Romaine and Andrew Slifka and Ms. Foster that have not otherwise vested automatically will become fully vested, which is reflected appropriately in the tables below. Please read “Elements of Compensation—Long-Term Incentive Plan” for information regarding performance restrictions and additional vesting terms.
110
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Termination by general |
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
partner without Cause / |
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Constructive Termination / |
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Breach by general partner |
|
|
|
||
|
|
Change in |
|
|
|
|
|
No Change |
|
With a Change |
|
|
|
|
|
Control |
|
Death |
|
Disability |
|
in Control |
|
in Control |
|
Nonrenewal |
|
Name |
|
($) |
|
($) |
|
($) |
|
($) |
|
($) |
|
($) |
|
Eric Slifka |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Severance Amount |
|
— |
|
3,200,000 |
|
3,200,000 |
|
3,200,000 |
|
4,800,000 |
|
800,000 |
|
Long Term Cash Incentive Plan |
|
— |
|
— |
|
— |
|
— |
|
— |
|
— |
|
LTIP awards |
|
2,475,188 |
|
— |
|
— |
|
— |
|
2,475,188 |
|
— |
|
Fringe benefits |
|
— |
|
39,711 |
|
39,711 |
|
39,711 |
|
39,711 |
|
— |
|
Life insurance benefits |
|
— |
|
500,000 |
|
— |
|
— |
|
— |
|
— |
|
Total |
|
2,475,188 |
|
3,739,711 |
|
3,239,711 |
|
3,239,711 |
|
7,314,899 |
|
800,000 |
|
If Mr. Slifka’s employment is terminated for any reason, he shall be paid (i) all amounts of his base salary due and owing up through the date of termination, (ii) any earned but unpaid bonus, (iii) all reimbursements of expenses appropriately and timely submitted, and (iv) any and all other amounts, including vacation pay, that may be due to him as of the date of termination (the “Eric Slifka Accrued Obligations”).
If Mr. Slifka’s employment is terminated by death or “Disability” (as defined in the employment agreement), he (or his estate) will be paid (i) the Eric Slifka Accrued Obligations, plus (ii) a lump sum payment equal to his then base salary multiplied by 200%, plus (iii) an amount equal to the target incentive amount under the then applicable short-term incentive plan multiplied by 200%, plus (iv) his interests in the long-term incentive plans, including (a) the pro-rated cash incentive amount, if any, earned under the Long-Term Performance-Based Cash Incentive Plan and (b) the amounts of cash and/or securities due as a result of the automatic vesting of Mr. Slifka’s interests in the Long-Term Equity-Based Incentive Plan, plus (v) group health and similar insurance premiums on behalf of his spouse and dependents for 24 months following the date of termination.
If Mr. Slifka’s employment is terminated by our general partner without “Cause” or by Mr. Slifka for reasons constituting “Constructive Termination,” each as defined in the employment agreement, he shall be paid (i) the Eric Slifka Accrued Obligations, plus (ii) a lump sum payment equal to his then base salary multiplied by 200% (provided, however, that this multiplier shall be 300% if Mr. Slifka terminates his employment for reasons constituting Constructive Termination and such termination occurs within 12 months following a “Change in Control” (as defined in the employment agreement), plus (iii) an amount equal to the target incentive amount under the then applicable short-term incentive plan multiplied by 200% (provided, however, that this multiplier shall be 300% if Mr. Slifka terminates his employment for reasons constituting Constructive Termination and such termination occurs within 12 months following a Change in Control), plus (iv) his interests in the long-term incentive plans, including (a) the pro-rated cash incentive amount, if any, earned under the Long-Term Performance-Based Cash Incentive Plan and (b) the amounts of cash and/or securities due as a result of the automatic vesting of Mr. Slifka’s interests in the Long-Term Equity-Based Incentive Plan, plus (v) group health and similar insurance premiums on behalf of his spouse and dependents for 24 months following the date of termination. If Mr. Slifka terminates his employment for reasons of Constructive Termination but such termination does not occur within 12 months following a Change in Control and Mr. Slifka secures employment within 12 months of the date of termination, he shall repay to our general partner one-half of the cash received from our general partner pursuant to (ii) and (iii) above.
If Mr. Slifka’s employment is terminated by our general partner for Cause, Mr. Slifka will be paid the Eric Slifka Accrued Obligations. If Mr. Slifka’s employment agreement is not renewed by our general partner and he does not continue to serve as our general partner’s President and Chief Executive Officer following the expiration of his employment agreement, he shall be paid the Eric Slifka Accrued Obligations plus a lump sum payment equal to 100% of his then base salary.
111
Mark A. Romaine
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Termination by general |
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
partner without Cause / |
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Constructive Termination / |
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Breach by general partner |
|
|
|
||
|
|
Change in |
|
|
|
|
|
No Change |
|
With a Change |
|
|
|
|
|
Control |
|
Death |
|
Disability |
|
in Control |
|
in Control |
|
Nonrenewal |
|
Name |
|
($) |
|
($) |
|
($) |
|
($) |
|
($) |
|
($) |
|
Mark A. Romaine |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Severance Amount |
|
— |
|
— |
|
— |
|
1,000,000 |
|
2,000,000 |
|
— |
|
LTIP awards |
|
1,108,883 |
|
— |
|
— |
|
— |
|
1,108,883 |
|
— |
|
Fringe benefits |
|
— |
|
40,109 |
|
— |
|
63,910 |
|
63,910 |
|
— |
|
Life insurance benefits |
|
— |
|
500,000 |
|
— |
|
— |
|
— |
|
— |
|
Total |
|
1,108,883 |
|
540,109 |
|
— |
|
1,063,910 |
|
3,172,793 |
|
— |
|
The employment agreement with Mr. Romaine may be terminated at any time by either party with proper notice. If Mr. Romaine’s employment is terminated for any reason, Mr. Romaine will receive payment through the date of termination of (i) any earned, but unpaid, base salary as then in effect, (ii) all earned, but unpaid, bonuses, and (iii) all accrued vacation, expense reimbursements and other benefits (other than severance benefits, except as provided below) due in accordance with the established plans and policies of our general partner or applicable law (the “Romaine Accrued Obligations”).
If Mr. Romaine’s employment is terminated by our general partner without “Cause” or by Mr. Romaine for “Constructive Termination” (each quoted term as defined in the employment agreement), Mr. Romaine shall be entitled to receive the Romaine Accrued Obligations plus a severance payment in an amount equal to the sum of (i) twice his then base salary, plus (ii) if such termination occurs within 12 months following a “Change in Control” (as defined in the employment agreement), an amount equal to twice the target incentive amount under the then applicable short-term incentive plan for the fiscal year in which the termination occurs. In addition, our general partner shall provide health care continuation coverage benefits to Mr. Romaine and would continue to pay the applicable percentage of the medical insurance premiums that it pays for active employees during the applicable coverage period (not to exceed 18 months).
Further, if Mr. Romaine’s employment is terminated by our general partner without Cause or by Mr. Romaine for Constructive Termination at any time within three months before a Change in Control and 12 months following a Change in Control, then Mr. Romaine will receive the Romaine Accrued Obligations plus 100% accelerated vesting on any and all outstanding options, restricted units, phantom units, unit appreciation rights, and other similar rights (under the LTIP or otherwise) held by him as in effect on the date of termination.
If Mr. Romaine’s employment is terminated by our general partner for “Cause,” by Mr. Romaine voluntarily (for reasons other than Constructive Termination) or by reason of death, Mr. Romaine shall receive the Romaine Accrued Obligations.
112
Edward J. Faneuil
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Termination by general |
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
partner without Cause / |
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Constructive Termination / |
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Breach by general partner |
|
|
|
||
|
|
Change in |
|
|
|
|
|
No Change |
|
With a Change |
|
|
|
|
|
Control |
|
Death |
|
Disability |
|
in Control |
|
in Control |
|
Nonrenewal |
|
Name |
|
($) |
|
($) |
|
($) |
|
($) |
|
($) |
|
($) |
|
Edward J. Faneuil |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Severance Amount |
|
— |
|
— |
|
— |
|
900,000 |
|
1,800,000 |
|
— |
|
Deferred Compensation |
|
1,518,440 |
|
1,518,440 |
|
1,518,440 |
|
1,518,440 |
|
1,518,440 |
|
— |
|
LTIP awards |
|
1,485,124 |
|
— |
|
— |
|
— |
|
1,485,124 |
|
— |
|
Fringe benefits |
|
— |
|
— |
|
— |
|
62,881 |
|
62,881 |
|
— |
|
Life insurance benefits |
|
— |
|
500,000 |
|
— |
|
— |
|
— |
|
— |
|
Total |
|
3,003,564 |
|
2,018,440 |
|
1,518,440 |
|
2,481,321 |
|
4,866,445 |
|
— |
|
The employment agreement with Mr. Faneuil may be terminated at any time by either party with proper notice. If Mr. Faneuil’s employment is terminated for any reason, Mr. Faneuil will receive payment through the date of termination of his employment of (i) any earned, but unpaid, base salary as then in effect, (ii) all earned, but unpaid, bonuses, and (iii) all accrued vacation, expense reimbursements and other benefits (other than severance benefits, except as provided below) due Mr. Faneuil in accordance with the established plans and policies of our general partner or applicable law (the “Faneuil Accrued Obligations”).
If Mr. Faneuil’s employment is terminated by our general partner without “Cause” or by Mr. Faneuil for “Constructive Termination,” each as defined in the employment agreement, he shall be entitled to receive the Faneuil Accrued Obligations plus a severance payment in an amount equal to the sum of (i) twice his then base salary, plus (ii) if such termination occurs within 12 months following a “Change in Control” (as defined in the employment agreement), an additional amount equal to twice his target incentive amount under the then applicable short-term incentive plan for the fiscal year in which the termination occurs. In addition, our general partner would provide health care continuation coverage benefits to Mr. Faneuil and would continue to pay the applicable percentage of the medical insurance premiums that it pays for active employees during the applicable coverage period (not to exceed 18 months).
If Mr. Faneuil’s employment is terminated by our general partner without Cause or by Mr. Faneuil for Constructive Termination at any time within three months before a Change in Control and 12 months following a Change in Control, then Mr. Faneuil will receive the Faneuil Accrued Obligations plus 100% accelerated vesting on any and all outstanding options, restricted units, phantom units, unit appreciation rights, and other similar rights (under the LTIP or otherwise) held by him as in effect on the date of termination.
If Mr. Faneuil’s employment is terminated by our general partner for “Cause,” by Mr. Faneuil voluntarily (for reasons other than Constructive Termination) or by reason of death, Mr. Faneuil shall receive the Faneuil Accrued Obligations.
Our general partner and Mr. Faneuil also entered into the Global Deferred Compensation Plan, pursuant to which Mr. Faneuil will be paid the sum of $70,000 per year (the “Global Deferred Compensation”) in equal monthly installments of $5,833.33 on the first business day of each month for 15 years (180 months) commencing on the earlier of: (i) August 1, 2014, and (ii) the first business day of the month following Mr. Faneuil's “separation from service” (as defined in the Code) with our general partner for reasons other than “Cause” (as defined in the deferred compensation agreement), subject to earlier termination as provided in the agreement. In the event of an unforeseeable emergency as referenced in the deferred compensation agreement, our general partner will pay Mr. Faneuil within 15 days of the occurrence of the unforeseeable emergency the maximum amount allowable in a lump sum promptly following the occurrence of such unforeseeable emergency. The Global Deferred Compensation will be forfeited in its entirety in the event that Mr. Faneuil terminates his employment for any reason other than death, disability or a Change in Control (as defined below). On and after the date on which Global Deferred Compensation payments commence, our general partner may terminate its obligations under the deferred compensation agreement for Cause or if our general partner subsequently determines within 18 months of Mr. Faneuil’s termination that circumstances which would give rise to a
113
for Cause termination of Mr. Faneuil otherwise existed at the time of his earlier termination. In the event of Mr. Faneuil’s death prior to his receiving any or all of the aggregate amount of the Global Deferred Compensation, our general partner will pay Mr. Faneuil’s beneficiary within 60 days of the date of his death a single lump sum payment in an amount equal to the present value of the remaining payments that would have been paid to Mr. Faneuil. If there is a Change in Control or Mr. Faneuil is determined to have become disabled prior to his receiving any or all of the aggregate amount of the Global Deferred Compensation, our general partner will pay to Mr. Faneuil within 60 days of the effective date of the Change in Control or the determination that Mr. Faneuil became disabled a single lump sum payment in an amount equal to the present value of the remaining payments that would have been paid to him had the Change in Control not occurred or had Mr. Faneuil not become disabled. For purposes of the Global Deferred Compensation Agreement, “Cause”, as defined in the deferred compensation agreement, means (a) any uncured material breach by Mr. Faneuil of his obligations under the Global Deferred Compensation Agreement, (b) any breach by Mr. Faneuil of his confidentiality, non-competition and non-solicitation obligations set forth on Exhibit “A” to the Global Deferred Compensation Agreement or included in his employment agreement with our general partner, (c) engagement in gross negligence or willful misconduct in the performance of his duties, (d) a conviction or plea of no contest to a crime involving fraud, dishonesty or moral turpitude or any felony, or (e) the commission of an act of embezzlement or willful breach of a fiduciary duty to our general partner, the Partnership or any of its Affiliates.
Alliance and Mr. Faneuil also entered into the Alliance Deferred Compensation Agreement, the terms of which, including, without limitation, the payment terms thereunder, are on the same terms as those of the Global Deferred Compensation Agreement. Accordingly, the various scenarios involving a change of control or termination of employment under the Alliance Deferred Compensation Agreement are identical to those described above with respect to the Global Deferred Compensation Agreement.
Our general partner is obligated to reimburse Mr. Faneuil for any and all federal excise taxes and penalties (other than penalties imposed as a result of Mr. Faneuil’s actions), and any taxes imposed upon such reimbursement amounts, including, but not limited to, any federal, state and local income taxes, employment taxes, and other taxes, if any, which may become due pursuant to the application of Sections 4999 and/or 409A of the Code on any payments to Mr. Faneuil in connection the employment agreement. Mr. Faneuil and our general partner have agreed to reform any provision of the deferred compensation agreement, as amended, between them in a manner mutually agreeable to avoid imposition of any additional tax under the provisions of Section 409A of the Code and related regulations and Treasury pronouncements.
Daphne H. Foster
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Termination by general |
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
partner without Cause / |
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Constructive Termination / |
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Breach by general partner |
|
|
|
||
|
|
Change in |
|
|
|
|
|
No Change |
|
With a Change |
|
|
|
|
|
Control |
|
Death |
|
Disability |
|
in Control |
|
in Control |
|
Nonrenewal |
|
Name |
|
($) |
|
($) |
|
($) |
|
($) |
|
($) |
|
($) |
|
Daphne H. Foster |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Severance Amount |
|
— |
|
— |
|
— |
|
800,000 |
|
1,400,000 |
|
— |
|
LTIP awards |
|
425,741 |
|
— |
|
— |
|
— |
|
425,741 |
|
— |
|
Fringe benefits |
|
— |
|
33,483 |
|
— |
|
34,833 |
|
34,833 |
|
— |
|
Life insurance benefits |
|
— |
|
500,000 |
|
— |
|
— |
|
— |
|
— |
|
Total |
|
425,741 |
|
533,483 |
|
— |
|
834,833 |
|
1,860,574 |
|
— |
|
The employment agreement with Ms. Foster may be terminated at any time by either party with proper notice. If Ms. Foster’s employment is terminated for any reason, Ms. Foster will receive payment through the date of termination of (i) any earned, but unpaid, base salary as then in effect, (ii) all earned, but unpaid, bonuses, and (iii) all accrued vacation, expense reimbursements and other benefits (other than severance benefits, except as provided below) due in accordance with the established plans and policies of our general partner or applicable law (the “Foster Accrued Obligations”).
If Ms. Foster’s employment is terminated by our general partner without “Cause” or by Ms. Foster for
114
“Constructive Termination” (each quoted term as defined in the employment agreement), Ms. Foster shall be entitled to receive the Foster Accrued Obligations plus a severance payment in an amount equal to the sum of (i) twice her then base salary, plus (ii) if such termination occurs within 12 months following a “Change in Control” (as defined in the employment agreement), an amount equal to twice the target incentive amount under the then applicable short-term incentive plan for the fiscal year in which the termination occurs. In addition, our general partner shall provide health care continuation coverage benefits to Ms. Foster and would continue to pay the applicable percentage of the medical insurance premiums that it pays for active employees during the applicable coverage period (not to exceed 18 months).
Further, if Ms. Foster’s employment is terminated by our general partner without Cause or by Ms. Foster for Constructive Termination at any time within three months before a Change in Control and 12 months following a Change in Control, then Ms. Foster will receive the Foster Accrued Obligations plus 100% accelerated vesting on any and all outstanding options, restricted units, phantom units, unit appreciation rights, and other similar rights (under the LTIP or otherwise) held by her as in effect on the date of termination.
If Ms. Foster’s employment is terminated by our general partner for “Cause,” by Ms. Foster voluntarily (for reasons other than Constructive Termination) or by reason of death, Ms. Foster shall receive the Foster Accrued Obligations.
Andrew Slifka
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Termination by general |
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
partner without Cause / |
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Constructive Termination / |
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Breach by general partner |
|
|
|
||
|
|
Change in |
|
|
|
|
|
No Change |
|
With a Change |
|
|
|
|
|
Control |
|
Death |
|
Disability |
|
in Control |
|
in Control |
|
Nonrenewal |
|
Name |
|
($) |
|
($) |
|
($) |
|
($) |
|
($) |
|
($) |
|
Andrew Slifka |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Severance Amount |
|
— |
|
425,000 |
|
843,125 |
|
843,125 |
|
843,125 |
|
576,941 |
|
LTIP awards |
|
574,495 |
|
— |
|
— |
|
— |
|
574,495 |
|
— |
|
Fringe benefits |
|
— |
|
61,645 |
|
98,523 |
|
61,645 |
|
61,645 |
|
— |
|
Life insurance benefits |
|
— |
|
500,000 |
|
— |
|
— |
|
— |
|
— |
|
Total |
|
574,495 |
|
986,645 |
|
941,648 |
|
904,770 |
|
1,479,265 |
|
576,941 |
|
If Mr. Slifka’s employment is terminated for any reason, he shall be paid (i) all amounts of his base salary due and owing up through the date of termination, (ii) any earned but unpaid bonus and short-term cash incentive plan amounts, (iii) all reimbursements of expenses appropriately and timely submitted and (iv) any and all other amounts that may be due to him as of the date of termination (the “Andrew Slifka Accrued Obligations”).
If Mr. Slifka’s employment is terminated due to death or “Disability” (as defined in the employment agreement), he (or his estate) shall be paid the Andrew Slifka Accrued Obligations, and continued payment of Mr. Slifka’s base salary as well as all fringe benefits through the end of the applicable term. Furthermore, if Mr. Slifka’s employment is terminated due to his Disability, he shall receive (a) payment of all monthly amounts due for all health and welfare insurance premiums on behalf of Mr. Slifka, his spouse and dependents, if any, for 24 months following the date of termination and (b) payment, payable in 24 equal monthly installments commencing on the last day of the month following the last day of the Term (as defined in the employment agreement), of an amount equal to the product of 75% and the sum of (i) Mr. Slifka’s then base salary and (ii) the average of the aggregate discretionary bonuses and short-term cash incentive plan amounts awarded to Mr. Slifka pursuant to the employment agreement, if any, for the two calendar years immediately preceding the termination of the employment agreement.
If Mr. Slifka’s employment is terminated by our general partner without “Cause” or by Mr. Slifka for reasons constituting “Constructive Termination,” each as defined in the employment agreement, he shall receive (1) the Andrew Slifka Accrued Obligations, (2) continuation of all compensation and benefits until the last day of the Term and (3) payment, payable in 24 equal monthly installments commencing on the first day of the month following the month in which the date of termination occurs, of an amount equal to the product of 75% and the sum of (a) Mr. Slifka’s then base salary and (b) the average of the aggregate discretionary bonuses and short-term cash incentive plan amounts awarded to
115
Mr. Slifka pursuant to the employment agreement, if any, for the two calendar years immediately preceding the termination of the employment agreement.
If Mr. Slifka’s employment is terminated by our general partner for “Cause,” Mr. Slifka will be paid the Andrew Slifka Accrued Obligations.
If Mr. Slifka’s employment agreement is not renewed by our general partner at the end of the applicable term and Mr. Slifka does not continue to serve as Executive Vice President of the Company or President of the Partnership’s Gasoline Distribution and Station Operations Division following the expiration of the employment agreement, Mr. Slifka shall be entitled to receive an amount, payable in 12 equal monthly installments, equal to the greater of: (1) the product of 75% and the sum of (a) Mr. Slifka’s then base salary and (b) the average of the aggregate discretionary bonuses and short-term cash incentive plan amounts awarded to Mr. Slifka pursuant to the employment agreement, if any, for the two calendar years immediately preceding the termination of the employment agreement and (2) 100% of Mr. Slifka’s then base salary. Mr. Slifka also shall be entitled to receive an additional amount equal to the sum of (x) 16.67% of his then base salary, and (y) 16.67% of his fringe benefits, to reflect the two months by which the term of his previous employment agreement was shortened.
Charles A. Rudinsky
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Termination by general |
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
partner without Cause / |
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Constructive Termination / |
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Breach by general partner |
|
|
|
||
|
|
Change in |
|
|
|
|
|
No Change |
|
With a Change |
|
|
|
|
|
Control |
|
Death |
|
Disability |
|
in Control |
|
in Control |
|
Nonrenewal |
|
Name |
|
($) |
|
($) |
|
($) |
|
($) |
|
($) |
|
($) |
|
Charles A. Rudinsky |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LTIP awards |
|
— |
|
— |
|
— |
|
— |
|
— |
|
— |
|
Fringe benefits |
|
— |
|
— |
|
— |
|
37,810 |
|
37,810 |
|
— |
|
Life insurance benefits |
|
— |
|
350,000 |
|
— |
|
— |
|
— |
|
— |
|
Total |
|
— |
|
350,000 |
|
— |
|
37,810 |
|
37,810 |
|
— |
|
The change of control agreement between our general partner and Mr. Rudinsky (the “Change of Control Agreement”) provides that, upon termination of his employment (i) by our general partner “Without Cause” (defined below), (ii) by Mr. Rudinsky for “Good Reason” (defined below), or (iii) in the case of a termination occurring during the three (3) month period ending on the Change of Control, Mr. Rudinsky will receive payment of (a) any earned, but unpaid, base salary as then in effect, (b) all earned, but unpaid, bonuses, (c) all accrued vacation, expense reimbursements and other benefits (other than severance), and (d) any and all other amounts that as of the date of termination may be due Mr. Rudinsky in accordance with the established plans and policies of our general partner or applicable law. “Cause” is defined in the Change of Control Agreement as having (i) engaged in gross negligence or willful misconduct in the performance of duties, (ii) committed an act of fraud, embezzlement or willful breach of fiduciary duty to our general partner or any of its subsidiaries (including the unauthorized disclosure of any material secret, confidential and/or proprietary information, knowledge or data of our general partner or any of its subsidiaries); (iii) been convicted of (or pleaded no contest to) a crime involving fraud, dishonesty or moral turpitude or any felony or (iv) any uncured breach of any material provision of the non-competition agreement between Mr. Rudinsky and our general partner, and “Good Reason” is defined as the occurrence of any material diminution, without Mr. Rudinsky’s written consent, in Mr. Rudinsky working conditions consisting of (a) a material reduction in his duties and responsibilities, (b) a material change in his title, or (c) a relocation of his place of work further than forty (40) miles from Waltham, Massachusetts.
116
Other Benefits
Pension Benefits
The table below sets forth information regarding the present value as of December 31, 2016 of the accumulated benefits of our named executive officers under the Global Partners LP Pension Plan, and, with respect to Mr. Faneuil, the Global and Alliance Deferred Compensation Agreements. Amounts with respect to the Global and Alliance Deferred Compensation Agreements are reflected in the table below because they represent a fixed entitlement.
Pension Benefits at December 31, 2016
|
|
|
|
Number of Years |
|
Present Value of |
|
Payments During |
|
Name |
|
Plan Name |
|
Credited Service (#) |
|
Accumulated Benefit ($) |
|
Last Fiscal Year ($) |
|
Eric Slifka |
|
(1) |
|
27 |
|
477,674 |
|
— |
|
Mark A. Romaine |
|
(1) |
|
14 |
|
163,828 |
|
— |
|
Edward J. Faneuil |
|
(1) |
|
23 |
|
638,851 |
|
— |
|
Edward J. Faneuil |
|
(2) |
|
n/a |
|
759,220 |
|
70,000 |
|
Edward J. Faneuil |
|
(3) |
|
n/a |
|
759,220 |
|
70,000 |
|
Daphne H. Foster |
|
(1) |
|
6 |
|
35,484 |
|
— |
|
Andrew P. Slifka |
|
(1) |
|
10 |
|
21,686 |
|
— |
|
Andrew P. Slifka |
|
(4) |
|
15 |
|
180,899 |
|
— |
|
Charles A. Rudinsky (5) |
|
(1) |
|
30 |
|
787,548 |
|
77,486 |
|
(1)Global Partners LP Pension Plan
(2) Global Deferred Compensation Agreement
(3)Alliance Deferred Compensation Agreement
(4) Global Montello Group Corp. Pension Plan
(5)From 1984 through 1988, Mr. Rudinsky was employed by National Petroleum Corporation, Inc. In 1988, a predecessor of ours acquired all of the outstanding capital stock of National Petroleum Corporation, Inc. and Mr. Rudinsky became an employee of said predecessor. In connection with this acquisition, and for purposes of the Global Partners LP Pension Plan, Mr. Rudinsky was credited with four additional years of service for the period from 1984 through 1988.
Global Partners LP Pension Plan
Effective December 31, 2009, the Global Partners LP Pension Plan (the “Global Pension Plan”) was amended to freeze participation in and benefit accruals under the Global Pension Plan. Prior to the freeze, all employees who (1) were 21 years of age or older, (2) were not covered by a collective bargaining agreement providing for union pension benefits, and (3) had been employed by our predecessor, our general partner or one of our operating subsidiaries for one year prior to enrollment in the Global Pension Plan were eligible to participate in the Global Pension Plan. An employee is fully vested in benefits under the Global Pension Plan after completing five years of service or upon termination due to death or disability. Certain employees are entitled to a supplemental benefit that vested over five years with 20% vesting on each December 31 beginning in 2010 and lasting through 2014. When an employee retires at age 65 or, if later, upon reaching five years' service, the employee can elect to receive a monthly annuity or an equivalent lump sum payment. An employee's benefit payable at retirement is equal to (1) 23% of the employee's average monthly compensation for the five consecutive calendar years during which the employee received the highest amount of pay (“Average Compensation”) plus (2) 19.5% of the employee’s Average Compensation in excess of his monthly “covered compensation” for Social Security purposes, as provided in the Global Pension Plan. However, if an employee has completed less than 30 years of service on his termination at or after reaching age 65, the monthly benefit will be reduced by 1/30th for each year less than 30 years completed by the employee. When an employee retires at an age other than 65, the employee retirement benefit will be the actuarial equivalent of the benefit he or she would have received if he or she had retired at age 65. An employee who terminates employment after completing at least five years of service
117
will be eligible for an early retirement benefit determined as described in the preceding sentence at any time after attaining age 60.
Benefits under the formula are based upon the employee’s highest consecutive five-year average compensation and are not subject to offset for social security benefits. Compensation for such purposes means compensation including overtime, but excluding bonuses, 50% of commissions, taxable fringe benefits, relocation allowances, transportation allowances, housing allowances, cash and DERs pursuant to any long-term incentive plan and any cash payable in lieu of group healthcare coverage. These estimated annual pension benefits do not include supplemental benefits, if any, to which the employee may be entitled.
GMG Pension Plan
As a result of the Alliance Acquisition, effective as of March 1, 2012, sponsorship of Alliance Energy LLC Pension Plan was transferred to GMG, which is a part of our controlled group, and the name of the plan was changed to the Global Montello Group Corp. Pension Plan (the “GMG Pension Plan”). Effective May 15, 2012, the GMG Pension Plan was amended to freeze participation in and benefit accruals. Prior to the freeze, all employees who (1) were 21 years of age or older, (2) were not covered by a collective bargaining agreement providing for union pension benefits, (3) had been employed by GMG or a predecessor employer for one year prior to enrollment in the Pension Plan, (4) were not nonresident aliens, (5) had not become employees as a result of Code Section 410(b)(6)(C) transaction during the current or next preceding year and (6) were not non-exempt gas station/c-store employees hired on or after January 1, 2007 or employees hired after September 30, 2009 were eligible to participate in the GMG Pension Plan. An employee is fully vested in benefits under the GMG Pension Plan after completing five years of service or, if earlier, upon termination due to death or disability. When an employee retires at age 65 with 5 years of service, the employee can elect to receive a monthly annuity or an equivalent lump sum payment. The employee's benefit payable at retirement is equal to (1) 23% of the employee’s average monthly compensation for the five consecutive calendar years during which the employee received the highest amount of pay (“Average Compensation”) plus (2) 19.5% of the employee's Average Compensation in excess of his monthly “covered compensation” for Social Security purposes, as provided in the GMG Pension Plan. When an employee retires at an age other than 65, the employee retirement benefit will be the actuarial equivalent of the benefit he or she would have received if he or she had retired at age 65. An employee who terminates employment after completing at least five years of service will be eligible for an early retirement benefit determined as described in the preceding sentence at any time after attaining age 60.
Benefits under the GMG Pension Plan formula are based upon the employee’s highest consecutive five-year average compensation and are not subject to offset for social security benefits. Compensation for such purposes means compensation including overtime, but excluding bonuses, 50% of commissions, deferred compensation, employee benefits, moving expenses, transportation allowance, salary continuation and non-cash remuneration.
Supplemental Executive Retirement Agreement
For a description of the benefits provided to Mr. Faneuil pursuant to his SERP Agreement, please read “Employment and Related Agreements—Supplemental Executive Retirement Agreement.”
Global and Alliance Deferred Compensation Agreements
For a description of the deferred compensation arrangements provided to Mr. Faneuil pursuant to the Global Deferred Compensation Plan and the Alliance Deferred Compensation Plan, please read “Employment and Related Agreements—Deferred Compensation Agreements” and “Potential Payments upon a Change of Control or Termination.”
118
Compensation of Directors
The following table sets forth (i) certain information concerning the compensation earned by our directors in 2016, and (ii) the aggregate amounts of stock awards and option awards, if any, held by each director at the end of the last fiscal year:
|
|
|
|
Equity Incentive |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Plan Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fees Earned |
|
Grant Date Fair |
|
All |
|
|
|
|
|
or Paid in |
|
Value of Unit |
|
Other |
|
Total |
|
Name |
|
Cash ($) |
|
Awards ($) (2) |
|
Compensation |
|
($) |
|
Richard Slifka |
|
71,000 |
|
— |
|
— |
|
71,000 |
|
Eric Slifka (1) |
|
— |
|
— |
|
— |
|
— |
|
Andrew Slifka (1) |
|
— |
|
— |
|
— |
|
— |
|
Kenneth I. Watchmaker |
|
87,500 |
|
— |
|
— |
|
87,500 |
|
Robert J. McCool |
|
80,000 |
|
— |
|
— |
|
80,000 |
|
David McKown |
|
80,000 |
|
— |
|
— |
|
80,000 |
|
Daphne H. Foster (1) |
|
— |
|
— |
|
— |
|
— |
|
(1)Messrs. Eric Slifka and Andrew Slifka and Ms. Foster, as executive officers of our general partner, are otherwise compensated for their services and therefore receive no separate compensation for their service as directors.
(2)As of December 31, 2016, our non-employee directors held the following aggregate number of unvested phantom units: Mr. Watchmaker (7,106), Mr. McCool (7,106) and Mr. McKown (7,106).
Employees of our general partner who also serve as directors do not receive additional compensation. In 2016, directors who are not employees of our general partner (1) received: (a) $60,000 annual cash retainer; (b) $1,000 for each meeting of the board of directors attended; (c) $2,000 for each audit committee meeting attended (limited to payment for one committee meeting per day); and (d) $1,000 for each committee meeting other than the audit committee meeting attended (limited to payment for one committee meeting per day), and (2) are eligible to participate in the LTIP. In 2016, the chair of the audit committee received an additional $7,500.
Each director also is reimbursed for out-of-pocket expenses in connection with attending meetings of the board of directors or committees.
On June 27, 2013, each of our non-employee independent directors received an award of 8,145 phantom units. These phantom units vest over a three year period, with one-third of the units granted scheduled to vest on each of December 31, 2014, December 31, 2015 and December 31, 2016. On December 31, 2014, the initial tranche of the June 27, 2013 awards vested and on January 15, 2015, Messrs. Watchmaker, McCool and McKown each received 2,715 common units of Global Partners LP. On December 31, 2015, the second tranche of the June 27, 2013 awards vested and on January 12, 2016, Messrs. Watchmaker, McCool and McKown each received 2,715 common units of Global Partners LP. On December 31, 2016, the third and final tranche of the June 27, 2013 awards vested. On January 13, 2017, Messrs. McCool and McKown each received 2,715 common units of Global Partners LP and on January 25, 2017, Mr. Watchmaker received 2,715 common units of Global Partners LP.
On January 15, 2015, in respect of their excellent service during 2014, Messrs. Watchmaker and McCool received outright grants, respectively, of 1,504 and 1,204 common of Global Partners LP, and Mr. McKown received a cash award of $40,000.
On April 20, 2015, Messrs. Watchmaker and McCool each received an award of 10,659 phantom units, and on September 18, 2015, Mr. McKown received an award of 10.659 phantom units (under a then new form of grant agreement which provides for cash settlement of the award). Under each of these awards, one-third of the units granted are scheduled to vest on each of January 2, 2016, January 2, 2017 and January 2, 2018. On January 2, 2016, the initial tranche of the April 20, 2015 and September 18, 2015 awards vested, Messrs. Watchmaker and McCool each received 3,553 common units of Global Partners LP on January 12, 2016, and Mr. McKown’s award was settled in cash on January 19, 2016. On January 2, 2017, the second tranche of the April 20, 2015 and September 18, 2015 awards vested,
119
Messrs. McCool and Watchmaker each received 3,553 common units of Global Partners LP on January 13, 2017 and January 25, 2017, respectively, and Mr. McKown’s award was settled in cash on February 8, 2017.
Each director will be fully indemnified by us for actions associated with being a director to the extent permitted under Delaware law.
Item 12. Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Stockholder Matters.
The following table sets forth as of March 7, 2017 the beneficial ownership of units representing limited partner interests in Global Partners LP (“Units”) held by certain beneficial owners of more than five percent (5%) of the Units, by each director and named executive officer of Global GP LLC, the general partner of Global Partners LP (“General Partner”) and by all directors and executive officers of our General Partner as a group:
|
|
|
|
Percentage |
|
|
|
Common |
|
of Common |
|
|
|
Units |
|
Units |
|
|
|
Beneficially |
|
Beneficially |
|
Name of Beneficial Owner (1) |
|
Owned |
|
Owned |
|
Richard Slifka (2)(3)(4)(5)(6)(7)(9) |
|
5,561,263 |
|
16.4 |
% |
Alfred A. Slifka 1990 Trust Under Article II-A (2)(3)(4)(5)(6)(7)(8) |
|
4,715,776 |
|
13.9 |
% |
OppenheimerFunds Inc. (10) |
|
3,861,068 |
|
11.4 |
% |
Oppenheimer Steelpath MLP Income Fund (10) |
|
2,744,433 |
|
8.1 |
% |
Montello Oil Corporation (2) |
|
2,348,078 |
|
6.9 |
% |
Kayne Anderson Capital Advisors L.P. (13) |
|
1,919,497 |
|
5.6 |
% |
Richard A. Kayne (13) |
|
1,919,497 |
|
5.6 |
% |
Global Petroleum Corp. (3) |
|
1,725,463 |
|
5.1 |
% |
Eric Slifka (5)(11)(12) |
|
1,625,035 |
|
4.8 |
% |
Larea Holdings LLC (11) |
|
564,984 |
|
1.7 |
% |
Andrew Slifka (9) |
|
496,372 |
|
1.5 |
% |
Global GP LLC (5) |
|
463,294 |
|
1.4 |
% |
Edward J. Faneuil |
|
50,157 |
|
* |
|
Charles A. Rudinsky |
|
26,085 |
|
* |
|
Mark Romaine |
|
18,115 |
|
* |
|
Daphne H. Foster |
|
2,400 |
|
* |
|
Robert J. McCool |
|
27,682 |
|
* |
|
Kenneth I. Watchmaker |
|
29,332 |
|
* |
|
David K. McKown |
|
10,572 |
|
* |
|
Larea Holdings II LLC (9) |
|
282,492 |
|
* |
|
Chelsea Terminal Limited Partnership (4) |
|
120,356 |
|
* |
|
Sandwich Terminal, L.L.C. (6) |
|
8,475 |
|
* |
|
All directors and executive officers as a group (10 persons) |
|
7,847,013 |
|
23.1 |
% |
*Less than 1%
(1) |
The address for each person or entity listed other than (i) Kayne Anderson Capital Advisors, L.P., (ii) Richard A. Kayne, (iii) OppenheimerFunds, Inc., and (iv) Oppenheimer Steelpath MLP Income Fund is P.O. Box 9161, 800 South Street, Suite 500, Waltham, Massachusetts 02454‑9161. |
(2) |
Richard Slifka and the Alfred A. Slifka 1990 Trust Under Article II-A share voting and investment power with respect to and, therefore, may be deemed to beneficially own, the units owned by Montello Oil Corporation. |
(3) |
Richard Slifka and the Alfred A. Slifka 1990 Trust Under Article II-A share voting and investment power with respect to, and therefore may be deemed to beneficially own, the units owned by Global Petroleum Corp. |
(4) |
Richard Slifka and the Alfred A. Slifka 1990 Trust Under Article II-A share voting and investment power with respect to and, therefore, may be deemed to beneficially own, the units owned by Chelsea Terminal Limited Partnership. |
120
(5) |
Purchased by our general partner for the purpose of assisting us in meeting our anticipated obligations to deliver common units under our Long-Term Incentive Plan to officers, directors and employees. Richard Slifka and the Alfred A. Slifka 1990 Trust Under Article II-A control Global GP LLC, and thus may be deemed to beneficially own the units owned by Global GP LLC. The co-trustees of the Alfred A. Slifka 1990 Trust Under Article II-A have delegated the voting rights in Global GP LLC of the Alfred A. Slifka 1990 Trust Under Article II-A to Eric Slifka in Global GP LLC, and thus Eric Slifka may be deemed to beneficially own the units owned by Global GP LLC. |
(6) |
Richard Slifka and the Alfred A. Slifka 1990 Trust Under Article II-A are equal owners of Sandwich Terminal, L.L.C. and share voting and investment power with respect to and, therefore, may be deemed to beneficially own, the units owned by Sandwich Terminal, L.L.C. |
(7) |
Beneficially owned unit amounts for each of Richard Slifka and the Alfred A. Slifka 1990 Trust Under Article II-A include the units owned by Montello Oil Corporation, Global Petroleum Corp., Chelsea Terminal Limited Partnership, Global GP LLC and Sandwich Terminal, L.L.C. Beneficially owned unit amounts for Richard Slifka also include the units owned by Larea Holdings II LLC. Beneficially owned unit amounts for the Alfred A. Slifka 1990 Trust Under Article II-A also include 50,110 units that are held by the Alfred A. Slifka 1990 Trust Under Article II-A. Richard Slifka and the late Alfred A. Slifka are brothers. |
(8) |
Alfred A. Slifka passed away on March 9, 2014. His estate closed effective February 28, 2017 and his beneficially owned interests set forth on the above table have accordingly been transferred to the Alfred A. Slifka 1990 Trust Under Article II-A on that date. |
(9) |
Richard Slifka is the trustee of a voting trust with sole voting and investment power with respect to units owned by Larea Holdings II LLC. Richard Slifka may, therefore, be deemed to beneficially own the units held by Larea Holdings II LLC. Richard Slifka’s son, Andrew Slifka, is a one-third owner of Larea Holdings II LLC. Because Andrew Slifka does not share voting and investment power with respect to the units owned by Larea Holdings II LLC, he is not deemed to beneficially own such units. |
(10) |
According to a Schedule 13G/A filed on January 26, 2017, OppenheimerFunds, Inc. beneficially owned 3,861,068 common units, representing 11.4% of the common units then outstanding and Oppenheimer Steelpath MLP Income Fund beneficially owned 2,744,433 common units, representing 8.1% of the common units then outstanding. The address for OppenheimerFunds, Inc. is 225 Liberty Street, New York, NY 10281 and the address for Oppenheimer Steelpath MLP Income Fund is 6803 S. Tucson Way Centennial, CO 80112-3924. |
(11) |
Eric Slifka has sole voting and investment power with respect to units owned by Larea Holdings LLC. Eric Slifka may, therefore, be deemed to beneficially own the units held by Larea Holdings LLC. Eric Slifka is the son of the late Alfred A. Slifka. |
(12) |
Beneficially owned unit amounts for Eric Slifka include the units owned by Larea Holdings LLC. |
(13) |
According to a Schedule 13G/A filed on January 25, 2017, Kayne Anderson Capital Advisors, L.P. beneficially owned 1,919,497 common units, representing 5.65% of the common units then outstanding and Richard A. Kayne beneficially owned 1,919,497 common units, representing 5.65% of the common units then outstanding. The address for Kayne Anderson Capital Advisors, L.P. and Richard A. Kayne is 1800 Avenue of the Stars, Third Floor, Los Angeles, California 90067. |
121
Equity Compensation Plan Table
The following table summarizes information about our equity compensation plans as of December 31, 2016:
|
|
|
|
|
|
Number of securities |
|
|
|
Number of Securities |
|
|
|
remaining available for |
|
|
|
to be issued |
|
Weighted average |
|
future issuance under |
|
|
|
upon exercise of |
|
exercise price of |
|
equity compensation plans |
|
|
|
outstanding options, |
|
outstanding options, |
|
(excluding securities |
|
Plan Category |
|
warrants and rights |
|
warrants and rights |
|
reflected in column (a)) |
|
|
|
(a) |
|
(b) |
|
(c) |
|
Equity compensation plans approved by security holders |
|
509,452 |
|
— |
|
3,287,563 |
|
Equity compensation plans not approved by security holders |
|
— |
|
— |
|
— |
|
Total |
|
509,452 |
|
— |
|
3,287,563 |
|
Item 13. Certain Relationships and Related Transactions, and Director Independence.
As of March 7, 2017, affiliates of our general partner, including directors and executive officers of our general partner, owned 7,433,829 common units representing 21.9% of the limited partner interests in us. In addition, our general partner owns a 0.67% general partner interest in us.
Alfred A. Slifka, former Chairman of the board of our general partner, passed away on March 9, 2014. Mr. Slifka’s estate closed effective February 28, 2017 and his interests in our general partner and his beneficially owned interests in Global Partners LP and its affiliates were transferred to the Alfred A. Slifka 1990 Trust Under Article II-A on that date.
Steven McCool, the son of Robert J. McCool, one of our independent directors, is an employee of Global GP LLC. During our fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, his total compensation earned was approximately $156,260.
James Cook, the son-in-law of Richard Slifka, our Chairman, and the brother-in-law of Andrew Slifka, our Executive Vice President and director, is an employee of Global GP LLC. During our fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, his total compensation earned was approximately $262,930.
Operational Stage
Distributions of available cash to our general partner and its affiliates |
We will generally make cash distributions of 99.33% to the unitholders, including affiliates of our general partner (including directors and executive officers of our general partner), as the holders of an aggregate of 7,433,829 common units and 0.67% to our general partner. In addition, if distributions exceed the minimum quarterly distribution and other higher target levels, our general partner will be entitled to increasing percentages of the distributions, up to 48.67% of the distributions above the highest target level. |
|
Assuming we have sufficient available cash to pay the full minimum quarterly distribution on all of our outstanding units for four quarters, our general partner and its affiliates, including directors and executive officers of our general partner, would receive an annual distribution of approximately $13.8 million on their common units and $0.4 million on the 0.67% general partner interest. |
122
Payments to our general partner and its affiliates |
Our general partner does not receive a management fee or other compensation for its management of Global Partners LP. Our general partner and its affiliates are reimbursed for expenses incurred on our behalf. Our partnership agreement provides that our general partner determines the amount of these expenses. |
Withdrawal or removal of our general partner |
If our general partner withdraws or is removed, its general partner interest and its incentive distribution rights will either be sold to the new general partner for cash or converted into common units, in each case for an amount equal to the fair market value of those interests. |
Liquidation Stage |
|
Liquidation |
Upon our liquidation, the partners, including our general partner, will be entitled to receive liquidating distributions according to their particular capital account balances. |
Omnibus Agreement and Business Opportunity Agreement
We are a party to an omnibus agreement with Mr. Richard Slifka and our general partner that addresses the agreement of Mr. Richard Slifka not to compete with us and to cause his affiliates not to compete with us under certain circumstances. The omnibus agreement also addressed certain environmental indemnity obligations of Global Petroleum Corp. and certain of its affiliates, which indemnity obligations have expired. In connection with our acquisition of Alliance, Richard Slifka, Chairman of our general partner, entered into a business opportunity agreement with our general partner containing noncompetition provisions which are broader than those contained in the omnibus agreement in order to encompass our expanded lines of business since 2005.
Noncompetition
Pursuant to the omnibus agreement and the business opportunity agreement, Richard Slifka agreed, and pursuant to his employment agreement with our general partner each of Eric Slifka and Andrew Slifka agreed, for themselves and their respective affiliates, not to engage in, acquire or invest in any of the following businesses: (1) the wholesale and/or retail marketing, sale, distribution and transportation of refined petroleum products, crude oil, renewable fuels (including ethanol and bio‑fuels), natural gas liquids (including ethane, butane, propane and condensates), natural gas, compressed natural gas and liquefied natural gas; (2) the storage of refined petroleum products and/or any of the other products identified in (1) in connection with any of the activities described in (1); (3) the sale of convenience store items and sundries and related food service; and (4) bunkering, unless the Chief Executive Officer and the board of directors approve such activity. Pursuant to the omnibus agreement, Richard Slifka’s noncompetition obligations survive for so long as Richard Slifka, Eric Slifka and/or any of their respective affiliates, individually or as part of a group, control our general partner. Pursuant to each of Eric Slifka’s and Andrew Slifka’s employment agreements with our general partner, their noncompetition obligations survive for one year following the termination of each of their employment.
In addition, Eric Slifka’s and Andrew Slifka’s employment agreements include, and Eric Slifka and Andrew Slifka both agreed to, a confidentiality provision and a nonsolicitation provision, which generally will continue for two years following Eric Slifka’s and Andrew Slifka’s termination of employment.
123
Shared Services Agreements
We are party to a shared services agreement with Global Petroleum Corp. We believe the terms of this agreement are at least as favorable as could have been obtained from unaffiliated third parties. Under this agreement, we provide Global Petroleum Corp. with certain accounting, treasury, legal, information technology, human resources and financial operations support for which Global Petroleum Corp. pays or paid us an amount based upon the cost associated with the provision of such services. In addition, until February 1, 2015 (in connection with our acquisition of our petroleum products storage terminal located in Revere, Massachusetts from Global Petroleum Corp. and others), Global Petroleum Corp. provided us with certain terminal, environmental and operational support services, for which we paid a fee based on an agreed assessment of the cost associated with the provision of such services. With respect to the shared services agreement, we paid to Global Petroleum Corp. a total of $0, $8,000 and $96,000 for the years ended December 31, 2016, 2015 and 2014, respectively. The agreement with Global Petroleum Corp. was amended and restated on March 11, 2015 to remove the terminal, environmental and operational support services that had been provided to us. Under the amended and restated agreement, we will continue to provide Global Petroleum Corp. with certain tax, accounting, treasury and legal services at an agreed assessment of the cost associated with the provision of such services for an indefinite term, and any party may terminate its receipt of some or all of the services thereunder upon 90 days’ prior written notice. As of December 31, 2016, no notice of termination had been given under the agreement with Global Petroleum Corp. as then in effect.
We were party to a shared services agreement with AE Holdings until AE Holdings’ voluntary dissolution on July 10, 2015. We believe the terms of the AE Holdings agreement were at least as favorable as could have been obtained from unaffiliated third parties. Under this agreement, we provided AE Holdings with certain tax, accounting, treasury and legal support services for which AE Holdings paid us an aggregate of $15,000 per year, and either party had the ability to terminate its receipt of some or all of the services thereunder upon 90 days’ prior written notice.
Revere Terminal Acquisition from Global Petroleum Corp.
On January 14, 2015, we acquired the Revere terminal from Global Petroleum Corp. for a purchase price of approximately $23.7 million. Global Petroleum Corp. is currently owned by the Alfred A. Slifka 1990 Trust Under Article II-A and Richard Slifka. Pursuant to the purchase agreement entered into by both parties, we assumed all liabilities and obligations of Global Petroleum Corp. related to the terminal and the underlying real property, except for certain liabilities as set forth in the purchase agreement. We released Global Petroleum Corp. from and agreed to indemnify Global Petroleum Corp. from all known and unknown environmental liabilities relating to the terminal and underlying real property, provided that we will be responsible for the first remediation expenses arising from unknown conditions up to $1.5 million, in the aggregate, and then Global Petroleum Corp. will reimburse us for any remediation expenses in excess of $1.5 million up to $2.3 million, provided further that (i) Global Petroleum Corp. will have no obligation to reimburse us for expenses in excess of $750,000 in the aggregate, and (ii) Global Petroleum Corp.’s reimbursement obligations will survive for a period of three years following the closing of the acquisition. Any and all remediation expenses in excess of $2.3 million or incurred after the expiration of the three‑year survival period will be our responsibility.
In the event that we sell, within eight years of the closing of the acquisition, all or substantially all of the real property underlying the Revere terminal to a third party not affiliated with Global Petroleum Corp. or us and such third party does not intend to use the real property for petroleum‑related purposes, then we will pay Global Petroleum Corp. an amount equal to fifty percent of the net proceeds (as defined in the purchase agreement) received by us in connection with such sale.
Global Petroleum Corp. continued to provide terminalling services to us, and we continued to pay all amounts owed to Global Petroleum Corp., pursuant to the terms of the existing terminal storage rental and throughput agreement between Global Petroleum Corp. and us, until February 1, 2015.
124
Throughput Agreement with Global Petroleum Corp.
We had an exclusive terminal storage rental and throughput agreement with Global Petroleum Corp. with respect to the Revere terminal in Revere, Massachusetts. The terminal storage rental and throughput agreement terminated on February 1, 2015 in connection with our acquisition of the Revere terminal from Global Petroleum Corp. We believe the terms of this agreement were at least as favorable as could have been obtained from unaffiliated third parties. We retained the title to all our products stored at this terminal. We paid a monthly fee to Global Petroleum Corp., which was adjusted according to the Consumer Price Index for the Northeast region and for certain contractual costs. Including increases in certain contractual costs but excluding amortization of deferred rent, we paid to Global Petroleum Corp. a total of $0, $0 and $9.2 million for the years ended December 31, 2016, 2015 and 2014, respectively.
Relationship of Management with Global Petroleum Corp. and AE Holdings Corp.
Some members of our management team are also officers and/or directors of our affiliate, Global Petroleum Corp. Global Petroleum Corp. is wholly owned by ASRS Global General Partnership, an entity that is owned equally by Richard Slifka and by the Alfred A. Slifka 1990 Trust Under Article II-A. Messrs. Faneuil and Rudinsky spend a portion of their time providing services to Global Petroleum Corp. under a shared services agreement. Please read “—Shared Services Agreements.”
AE Holdings was 100% owned by members of the Slifka family until it was voluntarily dissolved effective July 10, 2015. Under a shared services agreement, Messrs. Eric Slifka, Faneuil and Rudinsky spent a portion of their time in 2015 providing services to AE Holdings until it was voluntarily dissolved. Please read “—Shared Services Agreements.”
Policies Relating to Conflicts of Interest
Conflicts of interest exist and may arise in the future as a result of the relationships between our general partner and its affiliates, on the one hand, and us and our unaffiliated limited partners, on the other hand. The directors and officers of our general partner have fiduciary duties to manage our general partner in a manner beneficial to its owners. At the same time, our general partner has a fiduciary duty to manage us in a manner beneficial to our unitholders and us. Our partnership agreement modifies and limits our general partner’s fiduciary duties to unitholders. Our partnership agreement also restricts the remedies available to unitholders for actions taken by our general partner that might otherwise constitute breaches of fiduciary duty under applicable Delaware law. The Delaware Revised Uniform Limited Partnership Act provides that Delaware limited partnerships may, in their partnership agreements, expand, restrict or eliminate the fiduciary duties otherwise owed by a general partner to limited partners and the partnership.
Under our partnership agreement, whenever a conflict arises between our general partner or its affiliates, on the one hand, and us or any other partner, on the other, our general partner will resolve that conflict. Our general partner will not be in breach of its obligations under our partnership agreement or its duties to us or our unitholders if the resolution of the conflict is:
· |
approved by the conflicts committee of our general partner, although our general partner is not obligated to seek such approval; |
· |
approved by the vote of a majority of the outstanding common units, excluding any common units owned by our general partner or any of its affiliates; |
· |
on terms no less favorable to us than those generally being provided to or available from unaffiliated third parties; or |
· |
fair and reasonable to us, taking into account the totality of the relationships between the parties involved, including other transactions that may be particularly favorable or advantageous to us. |
Our general partner may, but is not required to, seek the approval of such resolution from the conflicts committee of the board of directors of our general partner. If our general partner does not seek approval from the conflicts committee and its board of directors determines that the resolution or course of action taken with respect to the
125
conflict of interest satisfies either of the standards set forth in the third and fourth bullet points above, then it will be presumed that, in making its decision, the board acted in good faith, and in any proceeding brought by or on behalf of us or any limited partner of ours, the person bringing or prosecuting such proceeding will have the burden of overcoming such presumption. Unless the resolution of a conflict is specifically provided for in our partnership agreement, our general partner or the conflicts committee may consider any factors it determines in good faith to consider when resolving a conflict. When our partnership agreement requires someone to act in good faith, it requires that person to reasonably believe that he is acting in the best interests of the partnership, unless the context otherwise requires.
Director Independence
Please read Item 10, “Directors, Executive Officers and Corporate Governance” for information regarding director independence.
Item 14. Principal Accounting Fees and Services.
The audit committee of the board of directors of Global GP LLC selected Ernst & Young LLP, Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm, to audit the books, records and accounts of Global Partners LP for the 2016 and 2015 calendar years. The audit committee’s charter, which is available on our website at www.globalp.com, requires the audit committee to approve in advance all audit and non‑audit services to be provided by our independent registered public accounting firm. All services reported in the audit, audit‑related, tax and all other fees categories below were approved by the audit committee.
Pre‑approved fees to Ernst & Young LLP for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016 and 2015 were as follows (in thousands):
|
|
2016 |
|
2015 |
|
||
Audit Fees (1) |
|
$ |
4,445 |
|
$ |
4,986 |
|
Audit—Related Fees |
|
|
123 |
|
|
883 |
|
Tax Fees (2) |
|
|
1,795 |
|
|
2,046 |
|
Total |
|
$ |
6,363 |
|
$ |
7,915 |
|
(1) |
Represents fees for professional services provided primarily in connection with the audits of our annual financial statements and reviews of our quarterly financial statements. Audit fees also included Ernst & Young’s audits of the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting at December 31, 2016 and 2015. Fees for 2015 included an audit performed as part of our public offering and fees associated with our 2015 acquisitions. |
(2) |
Tax fees included tax planning and tax return preparation. |
126
Item 15. Exhibits and Financial Statement Schedules.
(a) |
The following documents are included with the filing of this report: |
1. |
Financial statements |
See “Index to Financial Statements” on page F‑1.
2. |
Financial statement schedules: |
Schedule II—Valuation and Qualifying Accounts
All other schedules for which provision is made in the applicable accounting regulation of the Securities and Exchange Commission are not required under the related instructions or are inapplicable and, therefore, have been omitted.
3. |
Exhibits |
Exhibits required to be filed by Item 601 of Registration S-K are set forth in the Exhibit Index accompanying this Annual Report and are incorporated herein by reference.
127
SIGNATURES
Pursuant to the requirements of Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned thereunto duly authorized.
|
Global Partners LP |
||
|
By: |
Global GP LLC, |
|
|
|
its general partner |
|
Dated: March 10, 2017 |
|
By: |
/s/ Eric Slifka |
|
|
|
Eric Slifka |
|
|
|
President and Chief Executive Officer |
Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, this report has been signed below by the following persons on behalf of the registrant and in the capacities indicated on March 10, 2017.
Signature |
|
Title |
|
|
|
/s/ Eric Slifka |
|
President, Chief Executive Officer and Director |
Eric Slifka |
|
(Principal Executive Officer) |
|
|
|
/s/ Daphne H. Foster |
|
Chief Financial Officer and Director |
Daphne H. Foster |
|
(Principal Financial Officer) |
|
|
|
/s/ Charles A. Rudinsky |
|
Executive Vice President and Chief Accounting Officer |
Charles A. Rudinsky |
|
(Principal Accounting Officer) |
|
|
|
/s/ Andrew Slifka |
|
Executive Vice President, |
Andrew Slifka |
|
President, Alliance Gasoline Division and Director |
|
|
|
/s/ Richard Slifka |
|
Chairman |
Richard Slifka |
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ David K. McKown |
|
Director |
David K. McKown |
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ Robert J. McCool |
|
Director |
Robert J. McCool |
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ Kenneth I. Watchmaker |
|
Director |
Kenneth I. Watchmaker |
|
|
128
F-1
Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
The Board of Directors of Global GP LLC
and Unitholders of Global Partners LP
We have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheets of Global Partners LP (“the Partnership”) as of December 31, 2016 and 2015, and the related consolidated statements of operations, comprehensive (loss) income, partners’ equity, and cash flows for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2016. Our audits also included the financial statement schedule listed in the Index at Item 15(a). These financial statements and schedule are the responsibility of the Partnership’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements and schedule based on our audits.
We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. An audit also includes assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.
In our opinion, the financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the consolidated financial position of Global Partners LP at December 31, 2016 and 2015, and the consolidated results of its operations and its cash flows for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2016, in conformity with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles. Also, in our opinion, the related financial statement schedule, when considered in relation to the basic financial statements taken as a whole, presents fairly in all material respects the information set forth therein.
We also have audited, in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), Global Partners LP’s internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2016, based on criteria established in Internal Control—Integrated Framework issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (2013 framework) and our report dated March 10, 2017 expressed an unqualified opinion thereon.
/s/ Ernst & Young LLP
Boston, Massachusetts
March 10, 2017
F-2
GLOBAL PARTNERS LP
(In thousands, except unit data
|
|
December 31, |
|
||||
|
|
2016 |
|
2015 |
|
||
Assets |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current assets: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents |
|
$ |
10,028 |
|
$ |
1,116 |
|
Accounts receivable, net (less allowance of $5,549 and $5,942 as of December 31, 2016 and 2015, respectively) |
|
|
421,360 |
|
|
311,354 |
|
Accounts receivable—affiliates |
|
|
3,143 |
|
|
2,578 |
|
Inventories |
|
|
521,878 |
|
|
388,952 |
|
Brokerage margin deposits |
|
|
27,653 |
|
|
31,327 |
|
Derivative assets |
|
|
21,382 |
|
|
66,099 |
|
Prepaid expenses and other current assets |
|
|
70,022 |
|
|
65,609 |
|
Total current assets |
|
|
1,075,466 |
|
|
867,035 |
|
Property and equipment, net |
|
|
1,099,899 |
|
|
1,242,683 |
|
Intangible assets, net |
|
|
65,013 |
|
|
75,694 |
|
Goodwill |
|
|
294,768 |
|
|
435,369 |
|
Other assets |
|
|
28,874 |
|
|
42,894 |
|
Total assets |
|
$ |
2,564,020 |
|
$ |
2,663,675 |
|
Liabilities and partners’ equity |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current liabilities: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accounts payable |
|
$ |
320,262 |
|
$ |
303,781 |
|
Working capital revolving credit facility—current portion |
|
|
274,600 |
|
|
98,100 |
|
Environmental liabilities—current portion |
|
|
5,341 |
|
|
5,350 |
|
Trustee taxes payable |
|
|
101,166 |
|
|
95,264 |
|
Accrued expenses and other current liabilities |
|
|
70,443 |
|
|
60,328 |
|
Derivative liabilities |
|
|
27,413 |
|
|
31,911 |
|
Total current liabilities |
|
|
799,225 |
|
|
594,734 |
|
Working capital revolving credit facility—less current portion |
|
|
150,000 |
|
|
150,000 |
|
Revolving credit facility |
|
|
216,700 |
|
|
269,000 |
|
Senior notes |
|
|
659,150 |
|
|
656,564 |
|
Environmental liabilities—less current portion |
|
|
57,724 |
|
|
67,883 |
|
Financing obligations |
|
|
152,444 |
|
|
89,790 |
|
Deferred tax liabilities |
|
|
66,054 |
|
|
84,836 |
|
Other long-term liabilities |
|
|
64,882 |
|
|
56,884 |
|
Total liabilities |
|
|
2,166,179 |
|
|
1,969,691 |
|
Commitments and contingencies (see Note 9) |
|
|
— |
|
|
— |
|
Partners’ equity |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Global Partners LP equity: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common unitholders 33,995,563 units issued and 33,543,669 outstanding at December 31, 2016 and 33,995,563 units issued and 33,506,844 outstanding at December 31, 2015) |
|
|
401,044 |
|
|
657,071 |
|
General partner interest (0.67% interest with 230,303 equivalent units outstanding at December 31, 2016 and December 31, 2015) |
|
|
(2,948) |
|
|
(1,188) |
|
Accumulated other comprehensive loss |
|
|
(5,441) |
|
|
(8,094) |
|
Total Global Partners LP equity |
|
|
392,655 |
|
|
647,789 |
|
Noncontrolling interest |
|
|
5,186 |
|
|
46,195 |
|
Total partners’ equity |
|
|
397,841 |
|
|
693,984 |
|
Total liabilities and partners’ equity |
|
$ |
2,564,020 |
|
$ |
2,663,675 |
|
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these consolidated financial statements.
F-3
GLOBAL PARTNERS LP
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS
(In thousands, except per unit data)
|
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|
Year Ended December 31, |
|
|||||||
|
|
2016 |
|
2015 |
|
2014 |
|
|||
Sales |
|
$ |
8,239,639 |
|
$ |
10,314,852 |
|
$ |
17,269,954 |
|
Cost of sales |
|
|
7,693,149 |
|
|
9,717,183 |
|
|
16,725,167 |
|
Gross profit |
|
|
546,490 |
|
|
597,669 |
|
|
544,787 |
|
Costs and operating expenses: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Selling, general and administrative expenses |
|
|
149,673 |
|
|
177,043 |
|
|
153,961 |
|
Operating expenses |
|
|
288,547 |
|
|
290,307 |
|
|
204,070 |
|
Lease exit and termination expenses |
|
|
80,665 |
|
|
— |
|
|
— |
|
Amortization expense |
|
|
9,389 |
|
|
13,499 |
|
|
18,867 |
|
Net loss on sale and disposition of assets |
|
|
20,495 |
|
|
2,097 |
|
|
2,182 |
|
Goodwill and long-lived asset impairment |
|
|
149,972 |
|
|
— |
|
|
— |
|
Total costs and operating expenses |
|
|
698,741 |
|
|
482,946 |
|
|
379,080 |
|
Operating (loss) income |
|
|
(152,251) |
|
|
114,723 |
|
|
165,707 |
|
Interest expense |
|
|
(86,319) |
|
|
(73,332) |
|
|
(47,764) |
|
(Loss) income before income tax (expense) benefit |
|
|
(238,570) |
|
|
41,391 |
|
|
117,943 |
|
Income tax (expense) benefit |
|
|
(53) |
|
|
1,873 |
|
|
(963) |
|
Net (loss) income |
|
|
(238,623) |
|
|
43,264 |
|
|
116,980 |
|
Net loss (income) attributable to noncontrolling interest |
|
|
39,211 |
|
|
299 |
|
|
(2,271) |
|
Net (loss) income attributable to Global Partners LP |
|
|
(199,412) |
|
|
43,563 |
|
|
114,709 |
|
Less: General partner’s interest in net (loss) income, including incentive distribution rights |
|
|
(1,336) |
|
|
7,667 |
|
|
5,981 |
|
Limited partners’ interest in net (loss) income |
|
$ |
(198,076) |
|
$ |
35,896 |
|
$ |
108,728 |
|
Basic net (loss) income per limited partner unit |
|
$ |
(5.91) |
|
$ |
1.12 |
|
$ |
3.97 |
|
Diluted net (loss) income per limited partner unit |
|
$ |
(5.91) |
|
$ |
1.11 |
|
$ |
3.95 |
|
Basic weighted average limited partner units outstanding |
|
|
33,525 |
|
|
32,178 |
|
|
27,420 |
|
Diluted weighted average limited partner units outstanding |
|
|
33,525 |
|
|
32,323 |
|
|
27,502 |
|
Distributions per limited partner unit |
|
$ |
1.85 |
|
$ |
2.74 |
|
$ |
2.53 |
|
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these consolidated financial statements.
F-4
GLOBAL PARTNERS LP
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF COMPREHENSIVE (LOSS) INCOME
(In thousands)
|
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|
Year Ended December 31, |
|
|||||||
|
|
2016 |
|
2015 |
|
2014 |
|
|||
Net (loss) income |
|
$ |
(238,623) |
|
$ |
43,264 |
|
$ |
116,980 |
|
Other comprehensive income (loss): |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Change in fair value of cash flow hedges |
|
|
2,486 |
|
|
4,047 |
|
|
3,151 |
|
Change in pension liability |
|
|
167 |
|
|
1,111 |
|
|
(5,093) |
|
Total other comprehensive income (loss) |
|
|
2,653 |
|
|
5,158 |
|
|
(1,942) |
|
Comprehensive (loss) income |
|
|
(235,970) |
|
|
48,422 |
|
|
115,038 |
|
Comprehensive loss (income) attributable to noncontrolling interest |
|
|
39,211 |
|
|
299 |
|
|
(2,271) |
|
Comprehensive (loss) income attributable to Global Partners LP |
|
$ |
(196,759) |
|
$ |
48,721 |
|
$ |
112,767 |
|
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these consolidated financial statements.
F-5
GLOBAL PARTNERS LP
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
(In thousands)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31, |
|
|||||||
|
|
2016 |
|
2015 |
|
2014 |
|
|||
Cash flows from operating activities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net (loss) income |
|
$ |
(238,623) |
|
$ |
43,264 |
|
$ |
116,980 |
|
Adjustments to reconcile net (loss) income to net cash (used in) provided by operating activities: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Depreciation and amortization |
|
|
111,942 |
|
|
115,851 |
|
|
86,364 |
|
Amortization of deferred financing fees |
|
|
6,019 |
|
|
5,899 |
|
|
5,627 |
|
Amortization of leasehold interests |
|
|
1,252 |
|
|
794 |
|
|
— |
|
Amortization of senior notes discount |
|
|
1,393 |
|
|
1,089 |
|
|
559 |
|
Bad debt expense |
|
|
231 |
|
|
1,172 |
|
|
1,700 |
|
Unit-based compensation expense |
|
|
4,145 |
|
|
4,208 |
|
|
3,485 |
|
Write-off of financing fees |
|
|
1,828 |
|
|
— |
|
|
1,626 |
|
Net loss on sale and disposition of assets |
|
|
20,495 |
|
|
2,097 |
|
|
2,182 |
|
Goodwill and long-lived asset impairment |
|
|
149,972 |
|
|
— |
|
|
— |
|
Deferred income taxes |
|
|
(18,782) |
|
|
(3,624) |
|
|
(11) |
|
Changes in operating assets and liabilities, excluding net assets acquired: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accounts receivable |
|
|
(110,237) |
|
|
154,716 |
|
|
226,962 |
|
Accounts receivable-affiliate |
|
|
(565) |
|
|
1,325 |
|
|
(2,499) |
|
Inventories |
|
|
(135,888) |
|
|
(32,648) |
|
|
235,993 |
|
Broker margin deposits |
|
|
3,674 |
|
|
(14,129) |
|
|
4,594 |
|
Prepaid expenses, all other current assets and other assets |
|
|
2,987 |
|
|
12,526 |
|
|
(49,020) |
|
Accounts payable |
|
|
17,410 |
|
|
(172,318) |
|
|
(324,500) |
|
Trustee taxes payable |
|
|
5,902 |
|
|
(15,648) |
|
|
25,528 |
|
Change in derivatives |
|
|
40,218 |
|
|
(8,869) |
|
|
(17,509) |
|
Accrued expenses, all other current liabilities and other long-term liabilities |
|
|
16,741 |
|
|
(33,199) |
|
|
26,841 |
|
Net cash (used in) provided by operating activities |
|
|
(119,886) |
|
|
62,506 |
|
|
344,902 |
|
Cash flows from investing activities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Acquisitions |
|
|
— |
|
|
(561,170) |
|
|
— |
|
Capital expenditures |
|
|
(71,279) |
|
|
(92,925) |
|
|
(95,114) |
|
Proceeds from sale of property and equipment |
|
|
77,726 |
|
|
4,331 |
|
|
4,021 |
|
Net cash provided by (used in) investing activities |
|
|
6,447 |
|
|
(649,764) |
|
|
(91,093) |
|
Cash flows from financing activities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Proceeds from issuance of common units, net |
|
|
— |
|
|
109,305 |
|
|
137,844 |
|
Net borrowings from (payments on) working capital revolving credit facility |
|
|
176,500 |
|
|
148,100 |
|
|
(227,000) |
|
Net (payments on) borrowings from revolving credit facility |
|
|
(52,300) |
|
|
135,200 |
|
|
(300,900) |
|
Proceeds from sale-leaseback, net |
|
|
62,469 |
|
|
— |
|
|
— |
|
Proceeds from senior notes, net of discount |
|
|
— |
|
|
295,338 |
|
|
258,903 |
|
Repayment of senior notes |
|
|
— |
|
|
— |
|
|
(40,244) |
|
Payments on line of credit |
|
|
— |
|
|
(700) |
|
|
(3,000) |
|
Repurchase of common units |
|
|
— |
|
|
(3,892) |
|
|
(8,632) |
|
Noncontrolling interest capital contribution |
|
|
— |
|
|
2,560 |
|
|
8,200 |
|
Distribution to noncontrolling interest |
|
|
(1,798) |
|
|
(5,280) |
|
|
(9,200) |
|
Distributions to partners |
|
|
(62,520) |
|
|
(97,495) |
|
|
(73,759) |
|
Net cash provided by (used in) financing activities |
|
|
122,351 |
|
|
583,136 |
|
|
(257,788) |
|
Cash and cash equivalents |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Increase (decrease) in cash and cash equivalents |
|
|
8,912 |
|
|
(4,122) |
|
|
(3,979) |
|
Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of year |
|
|
1,116 |
|
|
5,238 |
|
|
9,217 |
|
Cash and cash equivalents at end of year |
|
$ |
10,028 |
|
$ |
1,116 |
|
$ |
5,238 |
|
Supplemental information |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash paid during the period for interest |
|
$ |
64,112 |
|
$ |
59,764 |
|
$ |
31,554 |
|
Cash paid during the period for income taxes |
|
$ |
16,990 |
|
$ |
2,772 |
|
$ |
757 |
|
Non-cash exchange of 6.25% senior notes due 2022 |
|
$ |
— |
|
$ |
— |
|
$ |
110,000 |
|
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these consolidated financial statements.
F-6
GLOBAL PARTNERS LP
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF PARTNERS’ EQUITY
(In thousands)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accumulated |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
General |
|
Other |
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
|||
|
|
Common |
|
Partner |
|
Comprehensive |
|
Noncontrolling |
|
Partners’ |
|
|||||
|
|
Unitholders |
|
Interest |
|
Loss |
|
Interest |
|
Equity |
|
|||||
Balance at December 31, 2013 |
|
$ |
426,785 |
|
$ |
(238) |
|
$ |
(11,310) |
|
$ |
47,943 |
|
$ |
463,180 |
|
Issuance of common units |
|
|
137,844 |
|
|
— |
|
|
— |
|
|
— |
|
|
137,844 |
|
Net income |
|
|
108,728 |
|
|
5,981 |
|
|
— |
|
|
2,271 |
|
|
116,980 |
|
Noncontrolling interest capital contribution |
|
|
— |
|
|
— |
|
|
— |
|
|
8,200 |
|
|
8,200 |
|
Distribution to noncontrolling interest |
|
|
— |
|
|
— |
|
|
— |
|
|
(9,200) |
|
|
(9,200) |
|
Other comprehensive loss |
|
|
— |
|
|
— |
|
|
(1,942) |
|
|
— |
|
|
(1,942) |
|
Unit-based compensation |
|
|
3,485 |
|
|
— |
|
|
— |
|
|
— |
|
|
3,485 |
|
Distributions to partners |
|
|
(69,333) |
|
|
(4,955) |
|
|
— |
|
|
— |
|
|
(74,288) |
|
Repurchase of common units |
|
|
(8,632) |
|
|
— |
|
|
— |
|
|
— |
|
|
(8,632) |
|
Dividends on repurchased units |
|
|
529 |
|
|
— |
|
|
— |
|
|
— |
|
|
529 |
|
Balance at December 31, 2014 |
|
|
599,406 |
|
|
788 |
|
|
(13,252) |
|
|
49,214 |
|
|
636,156 |
|
Issuance of common units |
|
|
109,305 |
|
|
— |
|
|
— |
|
|
— |
|
|
109,305 |
|
Net income (loss) |
|
|
35,896 |
|
|
7,667 |
|
|
— |
|
|
(299) |
|
|
43,264 |
|
Noncontrolling interest capital contribution |
|
|
— |
|
|
— |
|
|
— |
|
|
2,560 |
|
|
2,560 |
|
Distribution to noncontrolling interest |
|
|
— |
|
|
— |
|
|
— |
|
|
(5,280) |
|
|
(5,280) |
|
Other comprehensive income |
|
|
— |
|
|
— |
|
|
5,158 |
|
|
— |
|
|
5,158 |
|
Unit-based compensation |
|
|
4,208 |
|
|
— |
|
|
— |
|
|
— |
|
|
4,208 |
|
Distributions to partners |
|
|
(88,944) |
|
|
(9,643) |
|
|
— |
|
|
— |
|
|
(98,587) |
|
Repurchase of common units |
|
|
(3,892) |
|
|
— |
|
|
— |
|
|
— |
|
|
(3,892) |
|
Dividends on repurchased units |
|
|
1,092 |
|
|
— |
|
|
— |
|
|
— |
|
|
1,092 |
|
Balance at December 31, 2015 |
|
|
657,071 |
|
|
(1,188) |
|
|
(8,094) |
|
|
46,195 |
|
|
693,984 |
|
Net loss |
|
|
(198,076) |
|
|
(1,336) |
|
|
— |
|
|
(39,211) |
|
|
(238,623) |
|
Distribution to noncontrolling interest |
|
|
— |
|
|
— |
|
|
— |
|
|
(1,798) |
|
|
(1,798) |
|
Other comprehensive income |
|
|
— |
|
|
— |
|
|
2,653 |
|
|
— |
|
|
2,653 |
|
Unit-based compensation |
|
|
4,145 |
|
|
— |
|
|
— |
|
|
— |
|
|
4,145 |
|
Distributions to partners |
|
|
(62,892) |
|
|
(424) |
|
|
— |
|
|
— |
|
|
(63,316) |
|
Dividends on repurchased units |
|
|
796 |
|
|
— |
|
|
— |
|
|
— |
|
|
796 |
|
Balance at December 31, 2016 |
|
$ |
401,044 |
|
$ |
(2,948) |
|
$ |
(5,441) |
|
$ |
5,186 |
|
$ |
397,841 |
|
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these consolidated financial statements.
F-7
Note 1. Organization and Basis of Presentation
Organization
Global Partners LP (the “Partnership”) is a midstream logistics and marketing master limited partnership formed in March 2005 engaged in the purchasing, selling, storing and logistics of transporting petroleum and related products, including gasoline and gasoline blendstocks (such as ethanol), distillates (such as home heating oil, diesel and kerosene), residual oil, renewable fuels, crude oil, natural gas and propane. The Partnership owns, controls or has access to one of the largest terminal networks of refined petroleum products and renewable fuels in Massachusetts, Maine, Connecticut, Vermont, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, New York, New Jersey and Pennsylvania (collectively, the “Northeast”). The Partnership is one of the largest distributors of gasoline, distillates, residual oil and renewable fuels to wholesalers, retailers and commercial customers in the New England states and New York. The Partnership is also one of the largest independent owners, suppliers and operators of gasoline stations and convenience stores with locations throughout the New England states and New York. As of December 31, 2016, the Partnership had a portfolio of 1,458 owned, leased and/or supplied gasoline stations, including 248 directly operated convenience stores, in the Northeast, Maryland and Virginia. The Partnership also receives revenue from convenience store sales and gasoline station rental income. In addition, the Partnership owns transload and storage terminals in North Dakota and Oregon that extend its origin-to-destination capabilities from the mid-continent region of the United States and Canada.
Global GP LLC, the Partnership’s general partner (the “General Partner”), manages the Partnership’s operations and activities and employs its officers and substantially all of its personnel, except for most of its gasoline station and convenience store employees who are employed by Global Montello Group Corp. (“GMG”).
The General Partner, which holds a 0.67% general partner interest in the Partnership, is owned by affiliates of the Slifka family. As of December 31, 2016, affiliates of the General Partner, including its directors and executive officers and their affiliates, owned 7,433,829 common units, representing a 21.9% limited partner interest.
Note 2. Summary of Significant Accounting Policies
Basis of Consolidation and Presentation
On January 7, 2015, the Partnership acquired, through one of its wholly owned subsidiaries, GMG, 100% of the equity interests in Warren Equities, Inc. (“Warren”) from The Warren Alpert Foundation. On January 14, 2015, the Partnership acquired the Revere terminal (the “Revere Terminal”) located in Boston Harbor in Revere, Massachusetts from Global Petroleum Corp. (“GPC”) and related entities. On June 1, 2015, the Partnership acquired, through one of its wholly owned subsidiaries, Alliance Energy LLC (“Alliance”), retail gasoline stations and dealer supply contracts from Capitol Petroleum Group (“Capitol”). The financial results of Warren and the Revere Terminal for the year ended December 31, 2015 and of Capitol for the seven months ended December 31, 2015 are included in the accompanying statement of operations for the year ended December 31, 2015.
See Note 18, “Business Combinations,” for additional information on the Partnership’s acquisitions. The accompanying consolidated financial statements as of December 31, 2016 and 2015 and for the years ended December 31, 2016, 2015 and 2014 reflect the accounts of the Partnership. Upon consolidation, all intercompany balances and transactions have been eliminated.
Noncontrolling Interest
These financial statements reflect the application of Accounting Standards Codification (“ASC”) Topic 810, “Consolidations” (“ASC 810”) which establishes accounting and reporting standards that require: (i) the ownership interest in subsidiaries held by parties other than the parent to be clearly identified and presented in the consolidated
F-8
balance sheet within shareholder’s equity, but separate from the parent’s equity; (ii) the amount of consolidated net income attributable to the parent and the noncontrolling interest to be clearly identified and presented on the face of the consolidated statements of operations; and (iii) changes in a parent’s ownership interest while the parent retains its controlling financial interest in its subsidiary to be accounted for consistently.
The Partnership acquired a 60% interest in Basin Transload LLC (“Basin Transload”) on February 1, 2013. After evaluating ASC 810, the Partnership concluded it is appropriate to consolidate the balance sheet and statements of operations of Basin Transload based on an evaluation of the outstanding voting interests. Amounts pertaining to the noncontrolling ownership interest held by third parties in the financial position and operating results of the Partnership are reported as a noncontrolling interest in the accompanying consolidated balance sheets and statements of operations.
Reclassifications
Certain prior year amounts in the consolidated financial statements have been reclassified to conform to the current year presentation. Specifically, $30.5 million related to the ethanol plant acquired in 2013 had been included in property and equipment and classified as construction in process at December 31, 2015. As the Partnership continues to monitor the business development of this facility, in 2016, the plant was reclassified within property and equipment as an idle plant given the uncertainty as to when the plant might be placed into service. See Note 4. Such reclassifications had no effect on reported net (loss) income, total assets, partners’ equity or the statements of cash flows.
Use of Estimates
The preparation of financial statements in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and the disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts of revenues and expenses during the reporting period. Actual results may differ from those estimates under different assumptions or conditions. Among the estimates made by management are (i) estimated fair value of assets and liabilities acquired in a business combination and identification of associated goodwill and intangible assets, (ii) fair value of derivative instruments, (iii) accruals and contingent liabilities, (iv) allowance for doubtful accounts, (v) Level 3 valuations for crude oil and propane forward purchase and sales contracts, and (vi) assumptions used to evaluate goodwill, property and equipment and intangibles for impairment and environmental and asset retirement obligation provisions and cost of sales accrual. Although the Partnership believes these estimates are reasonable, actual results could differ from these estimates.
Cash and Cash Equivalents
The Partnership considers highly liquid investments with original maturities of three months or less at the time of purchase to be cash equivalents. The carrying value of cash and cash equivalents, including broker margin accounts, approximates fair value.
Accounts Receivable
The Partnership’s accounts receivable primarily results from sales of refined petroleum products, renewable fuels, crude oil, natural gas and propane to its customers. The majority of the Partnership’s accounts receivable relates to its petroleum marketing and crude oil activities that can generally be described as high volume and low margin activities. The Partnership makes a determination of the amount, if any, of a line of credit it may extend to a customer based on the form and amount of financial performance assurances the Partnership requires. Such financial assurances are commonly provided to the Partnership in the form of standby letters of credit, personal guarantees or corporate guarantees.
F-9
The Partnership reviews all accounts receivable balances on a monthly basis and records a reserve for estimated amounts it expects will not be fully recovered. At December 31, 2016 and 2015, substantially all of the Partnership’s accounts receivable classified as current assets were within payment terms.
Inventories
The Partnership hedges substantially all of its petroleum and ethanol inventory using a variety of instruments, primarily exchange-traded futures contracts. These futures contracts are entered into when inventory is purchased and are either designated as fair value hedges against the inventory on a specific barrel basis for inventories qualifying for fair value hedge accounting or not designated and maintained as economic hedges against certain inventory of the Partnership on a specific barrel basis. Changes in fair value of these futures contracts, as well as the offsetting change in fair value on the hedged inventory, is recognized in earnings as an increase or decrease in cost of sales. All hedged inventory designated in a fair value hedge relationship is valued using the lower of cost, as determined by specific identification, or market, as determined at the product level. All petroleum and ethanol inventory not designated in a fair value hedging relationship is carried at the lower of historical cost, on a first-in, first-out basis, or market.
Convenience store inventory and Renewable Identification Numbers (“RINs”) inventory are carried at the lower of historical cost or market.
Inventories consisted of the following at December 31 (in thousands):
|
|
2016 |
|
2015 |
|
||
Distillates: home heating oil, diesel and kerosene |
|
$ |
180,272 |
|
$ |
156,411 |
|
Gasoline |
|
|
101,368 |
|
|
62,467 |
|
Gasoline blendstocks |
|
|
54,582 |
|
|
32,542 |
|
Crude oil |
|
|
136,113 |
|
|
102,253 |
|
Residual oil |
|
|
29,536 |
|
|
12,895 |
|
Propane and other |
|
|
3,167 |
|
|
1,469 |
|
Renewable identification numbers (RINs) |
|
|
631 |
|
|
803 |
|
Convenience store inventory |
|
|
16,209 |
|
|
20,112 |
|
Total |
|
$ |
521,878 |
|
$ |
388,952 |
|
In addition to its own inventory, the Partnership has exchange agreements for petroleum products and ethanol with unrelated third‑party suppliers, whereby it may draw inventory from these other suppliers (see Revenue Recognition) and suppliers may draw inventory from the Partnership. Positive exchange balances are accounted for as accounts receivable and amounted to $4.0 million and $3.4 million at December 31, 2016 and 2015, respectively. Negative exchange balances are accounted for as accounts payable and amounted to $13.4 million and $12.1 million at December 31, 2016 and 2015, respectively. Exchange transactions are valued using current carrying costs.
Property and Equipment
Property and equipment are stated at cost less accumulated depreciation. Expenditures for routine maintenance, repairs and renewals are charged to expense as incurred, and major improvements are capitalized. Depreciation related to the Partnership’s terminal assets and gasoline stations is charged to cost of sales and all other depreciation is charged to selling, general and administrative expenses. Depreciation is charged over the estimated useful lives of the applicable assets using straight‑line methods, and accelerated methods are used for income tax purposes. When applicable and based on policy, which considers the construction period and project cost, the Partnership capitalizes interest on qualified long‑term projects and depreciates it over the life of the related asset.
F-10
The estimated useful lives are as follows:
Gasoline station buildings, improvements and storage tanks |
|
15-25 |
years |
|
Buildings, docks, terminal facilities and improvements |
|
5-25 |
years |
|
Gasoline station equipment |
|
7 |
years |
|
Fixtures, equipment and capitalized internal use software |
|
3-7 |
years |
|
The Partnership capitalizes certain costs, including internal payroll and external direct project costs incurred in connection with developing or obtaining software designated for internal use. These costs are included in property and equipment and are amortized over the estimated useful lives of the related software.
Intangibles
Intangibles are carried at cost less accumulated amortization. For assets with determinable useful lives, amortization is computed over the estimated economic useful lives of the respective intangible assets, ranging from 2 to 20 years.
Goodwill and Long-Lived Asset Impairment
The following table presents goodwill and long-lived asset impairment charges recognized during the years ended December 31 (in thousands):
|
|
2016 |
|
2015 |
|
2014 |
|
|||
Goodwill impairment |
|
$ |
121,752 |
|
$ |
— |
|
$ |
— |
|
Long-lived asset impairment |
|
|
28,220 |
|
|
— |
|
|
— |
|
Total |
|
$ |
149,972 |
|
$ |
— |
|
$ |
— |
|
Goodwill
Goodwill represents the future economic benefits arising from assets acquired in a business combination that are not individually identified and separately recognized. The Partnership has concluded that its operating segments are also its reporting units. Goodwill is tested for impairment annually as of October 1 or when events or changes in circumstances indicate that the carrying amount of goodwill may not be recoverable. Derecognized goodwill associated with the Partnership’s disposition activities of Gasoline Distribution and Station Operation (“GDSO”) sites will be included in the carrying value of assets sold in determining the gain or loss on disposal, to the extent the disposition of assets qualifies as a disposition of a business under ASC 805. As of December 31, 2016, GDSO reporting unit goodwill of $17.9 million has been derecognized related to the disposition of a portfolio of sites for the year ended December 31, 2016 (see Note 5).
As disclosed in the Partnership’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2015, the declining crude oil prices, changes in certain market conditions and decline in the Partnership’s common unit price, collectively caused the Partnership to reassess its goodwill allocated to the Wholesale reporting unit for impairment as of December 31, 2015. The Partnership’s results in 2015 were negatively impacted by tighter crude oil differentials. Certain of the key assumptions in the development of discounted cash flows used to evaluate the Wholesale reporting unit included the expectation of a recovery from tight crude oil differentials and low crude oil prices within 2017. Based on the results of this assessment, the Partnership concluded that step two of the quantitative assessment was not necessary and no impairment was required at that time.
During the first quarter ended March 31, 2016 and second quarter ended June 30, 2016, the Partnership considered whether there were any change of circumstances or events which would more likely than not reduce the fair
F-11
value of the Wholesale reporting unit below its carrying amount. While the Partnership had then concluded that such events and circumstances had not occurred, the Partnership disclosed the possibility that a continuation of low crude oil prices and tight crude oil differentials might cause the Partnership to conclude that the timing of a market recovery might be more extended than estimated within the Partnership’s five-year forecast and estimate of terminal values.
The Partnership further disclosed in its Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2015 and in its Quarterly Reports on Forms 10-Q as of March 31, 2016 and June 30, 2016, that a further sustained decline in commodity prices may cause the Partnership to reassess its long-lived assets and goodwill for impairment, and could result in future non-cash impairment charges as a result of such impairment assessments. If the Partnership is required to perform step two in the future for the Wholesale reporting unit, up to $121.7 million of goodwill assigned to this reporting unit could be written off in the period of such impairment assessment.
During the third quarter ended September 30, 2016, the Partnership continued to monitor the extent and timing of future demand. Crude oil prices had remained at lower levels but, more importantly, tight crude oil differentials continued such that the Partnership might no longer reasonably include an assumption that the market for crude oil by rail to the coasts might recover sometime within 2017 as previously expected. Factors contributing to the Partnership’s assumption included:
· |
Lack of logistics nominations by one particular customer and the expectations for limited, if any, nominations for the balance of 2016 by that customer; |
· |
A decline in spot crude oil volume indicating weakening demand for the Partnership’s services/assets; |
· |
Increased pipeline capacity out of the Bakken region; and |
· |
The lifting of the export ban, which provides another clearing mechanism for crude oil. |
These market conditions, in addition to declines noted during fiscal year 2015 as well as the first and second quarters of 2016, negatively affected the Partnership’s then current period results and future projections sufficiently to constitute triggering events for the Wholesale reporting unit. Based on its consideration of the factors above, the Partnership concluded it was necessary to perform an interim goodwill impairment test for the Wholesale reporting unit pursuant to the guidelines of ASC Topic 350, “Intangibles–Goodwill and Other” (“ASC 350”). The Partnership did not extend the interim test for recoverability to the GDSO reporting unit, as the indicators described above were specific to the Wholesale reporting unit.
The process of testing goodwill for impairment involves numerous judgments, assumptions and estimates made by management which inherently reflect a high degree of uncertainty. The impairment test includes either a qualitative assessment or a two-step quantitative assessment. The impairment test’s qualitative assessment is used in order to conclude if it is more likely than not that the reporting unit’s fair value exceeds its carrying value. Factors considered in the qualitative analysis include changes in the business and industry, as well as macro-economic conditions, that would influence the fair value of the reporting unit as well as changes in the carrying values of the reporting unit. In the impairment test’s two-step quantitative assessment, the fair value of each reporting unit is determined and compared to the book value of the reporting unit as determined under step one. If the fair value of the reporting unit is less than the book value, including goodwill, then step two is performed to compare the carrying amount of reporting unit goodwill to the implied fair value of that goodwill. If the carrying amount of reporting unit goodwill exceeds the implied fair value of that goodwill, an impairment loss is recognized for that excess with a charge to operations. The Partnership calculates the fair value of each reporting unit using a combination of discounted cash flows and market comparables.
Key assumptions included in the development of the discounted cash flow value for each reporting unit include:
Future commodity volumes and margins. The discounted cash flows are based on a five-year forecast with an estimate of terminal values. In general, the reporting units’ fair values are most sensitive to volume and gross margin assumptions. The Wholesale reporting unit’s cash flows are significantly influenced by the crude oil market, given the
F-12
Partnership’s 2013 investment in transloading terminals in North Dakota and Oregon.
Discount rate commensurate with the risks involved. The Partnership applies a discount rate to its expected cash flows based on a variety of factors, including market and economic conditions, operational risk, regulatory risk and political risk. A higher discount rate decreases the net present value of cash flows.
Future capital requirements. The Partnership’s estimates of future capital requirements are based upon a combination of authorized spending and internal forecasts.
As of September 30, 2016, as a result of the impairment indicators discussed above, the Partnership completed a preliminary assessment of the impairment of the Wholesale reporting unit’s goodwill. As a result of the step one assessment, the Partnership concluded that the fair value of the Wholesale reporting unit no longer exceeded its carrying value and as a result, performed a step two assessment to measure the impairment. In step two of the quantitative assessment, the implied fair value of goodwill is determined by assigning the fair value of a reporting unit to all the assets and liabilities of that unit (including any unrecognized intangible assets) as if the reporting unit had been acquired in a business combination. If the carrying amount of a reporting unit’s goodwill exceeds the implied fair value of that goodwill, an impairment loss is recognized for that excess. Upon applying step two of the impairment test, the Partnership preliminarily determined that the implied fair value of the Wholesale reporting unit goodwill was $0, and accordingly the Partnership recorded an impairment charge of $121.7 million as of September 30, 2016, or all of the goodwill previously allocated to this reporting unit.
The following procedures were, among others, the more significant analyses that the Partnership completed during the fourth quarter of 2016 to finalize its step one and step two impairment tests:
· |
Final appraisals to determine the estimated fair value of Wholesale, Commercial and GDSO reporting units, including final calculation of discount rates; |
· |
Final appraisals, certain of which were determined by third-party valuation specialists, to determine the estimated fair value of intangible assets, leases, and property and equipment within the Wholesale reporting unit; and |
· |
Final analysis for the Wholesale reporting unit to determine the estimated fair value adjustments required to certain other assets and liabilities of the reporting unit. |
As a result of finalizing the step one assessment, the Partnership concluded that no impairment was identified for the GDSO reporting unit and that there was no change to the conclusion that the fair value of the Wholesale reporting unit no longer exceeded its carrying value.
In connection with finalizing the step two impairment test, the Partnership made what it considered to be reasonable estimates of each of the above items in order to determine the goodwill impairment loss under the theoretical purchase price allocation required for a step two impairment test. Based on finalizing its assessment, the impairment charges recognized in the third quarter for goodwill and long-lived assets were appropriate and no additional charges were necessary.
During 2014, the Partnership completed step-one quantitative assessments for both the Wholesale and GDSO reporting units and no impairment was identified for either reporting unit.
Evaluation of Long-Lived Asset Impairment
Accounting and reporting guidance for long‑lived assets requires that a long‑lived asset (group) be reviewed for impairment when events or changes in circumstances indicate that the carrying amount might not be recoverable. Accordingly, the Partnership evaluates long-lived assets for impairment whenever indicators of impairment are
F-13
identified. If indicators of impairment are present, the Partnership assesses impairment by comparing the undiscounted projected future cash flows from the long‑lived assets to their carrying value. If the undiscounted cash flows are less than the carrying value, the long‑lived assets will be reduced to their fair value.
The Partnership recognized an impairment charge of $23.2 million during the year ended December 31, 2016 relating to long-lived assets used at its crude oil transloading terminals in North Dakota. Additionally, the Partnership recognized an impairment charge of approximately $2.9 million for the year ended December 31, 2016 associated with certain long-lived assets at its Albany, New York terminal and all development work in Port Arthur, Texas associated with the initial investments related to expanding the Partnership’s ability to handle crude oil at those locations. The long-term recoverability of these assets has been adversely impacted by a prolonged decline in crude oil prices and crude oil differentials. The method used for determining fair value of these assets relied on a combination of the cost and market approaches. These terminal assets are allocated to the Wholesale segment, and the total impairment charge of $26.1 million is included in goodwill and long-lived asset impairment in the accompanying statements of operations for the year ended December 31, 2016.
During the year ended December 31, 2016, the Partnership recognized an impairment charge of $1.9 million associated with the long-lived assets used in supplying compressed natural gas (“CNG”) which is viewed as an alternative fuel to oil. The long-term recoverability of these assets has been adversely impacted by the decline in commodity prices and the cost differential between natural gas and oil. As oil has remained an attractive alternative to CNG due to lower oil prices, the related impact on the CNG operating and cash flows was determined to be an impairment indicator, resulting in the impairment of the CNG long-lived assets during the year ended December 31, 2016. The method used for determining fair value of the CNG assets relied on the market approach. The impairment charge is included in goodwill and long-lived asset impairment in the accompanying statement of operations for the year ended December 31, 2016. On November 1, 2016, the Partnership sold its CNG assets.
Additionally, the Partnership recognized an impairment charge of $0.3 million for the year ended December 31, 2016 associated with the long-lived assets of one discrete GDSO site in its GDSO reporting unit. The method used for determining fair value of this site relied on the market approach. The impairment charge is included in goodwill and long-lived asset impairment in the accompanying statement of operations for the year ended December 31, 2016.
No material impairment charges were recognized in 2015 and 2014.
Environmental and Other Liabilities
The Partnership accrues for all direct costs associated with the estimated resolution of contingencies at the earliest date at which it is deemed probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of such liability can be reasonably estimated. Costs accrued are estimated based upon an analysis of potential results, assuming a combination of litigation and settlement strategies and outcomes.
Estimated losses from environmental remediation obligations generally are recognized no later than completion of the remedial feasibility study. Loss accruals are adjusted as further information becomes available or circumstances change. Costs of future expenditures for environmental remediation obligations are not discounted to their present value.
Recoveries of environmental remediation costs from other parties are recognized when related contingencies are resolved, generally upon cash receipt.
The Partnership is subject to other contingencies, including legal proceedings and claims arising out of its businesses that cover a wide range of matters, including environmental matters and contract and employment claims. Environmental and other legal proceedings may also include matters with respect to businesses previously owned. Further, due to the lack of adequate information and the potential impact of present regulations and any future
F-14
regulations, there are certain circumstances in which no range of potential exposure may be reasonably estimated. See Notes 12 and 21.
Asset Retirement Obligations
The Partnership is required to account for the legal obligations associated with the long‑lived assets that result from the acquisition, construction, development or operation of long‑lived assets. Such asset retirement obligations specifically pertain to the treatment of underground gasoline storage tanks (“USTs”) that exist in those states which statutorily require removal of the USTs at a certain point in time. Specifically, the Partnership’s retirement obligations consist of the estimated costs of removal and disposals of USTs. The liability for an asset retirement obligation is recognized on a discounted basis in the year in which it is incurred, and the discount period applied is based on statutory requirements for UST removal or policy. The associated asset retirement costs are capitalized as part of the carrying cost of the asset. The Partnership had approximately $8.3 million and $7.8 million in total asset retirement obligations at December 31, 2016 and 2015, respectively, which are included in other long‑term liabilities in the accompanying balance sheets.
Leases
The Partnership has terminal and throughput lease arrangements with various other oil terminals and third parties, certain of which arrangements have minimum usage requirements. In addition, the Partnership leases certain gasoline stations from third parties under long‑term arrangements with various expiration dates. The Partnership also has several long‑term lease agreements with Getty Realty, which enables the Partnership to supply and operate certain Getty Realty gasoline station sites, and with the Port of St. Helens in Clatskanie, Oregon for land and for access rights to a rail spur and dock located at its Oregon facility.
The Partnership has future commitments, principally for office space and computer equipment, under the terms of operating lease arrangements. The Partnership also leases railcars and barges through various lease arrangements with various expiration dates. The Partnership has rental income from gasoline stations and cobranding arrangements and lease income from space leased to several unrelated third parties at several of our terminals. Additionally, the Partnership has capital leases for other computer equipment and leasehold improvements.
In addition, in June of 2016, the Partnership sold real property assets, including the buildings, improvements and appurtenances thereto, at 30 gasoline stations and convenience stores. In connection with this sale leaseback transaction, the Partnership is party to a master unitary lease agreement with the buyer to lease back those real property assets sold with respect to such sites (see Note 6).
Accounting and reporting guidance for leases requires that leases be evaluated and classified as operating or capital leases for financial reporting purposes. The lease term used for lease evaluation includes option periods only in instances in which the exercise of the option period can be reasonably assured and failure to exercise such options would result in an economic penalty. Lease rental expense and income is recognized on a straight‑line basis over the term of the lease.
Early Termination of Railcar Sublease
On December 21, 2016 (effective December 31, 2016), the Partnership voluntarily terminated early a sublease with a counterparty for 1,610 railcars that were underutilized due to unfavorable market conditions in the crude oil by rail market. Separately, the Partnership entered into a fleet management services agreement (effective January 1, 2017) with the counterparty, pursuant to which the Partnership will provide future railcar storage, freight, cleaning, insurance and other services on behalf of the counterparty. As a result of the sublease termination, the Partnership recognized a lease exit expense of $80.7 million consisting of (i) $61.7 million cash consideration in settlement of the remaining lease payments, (ii) $10.7 million of accrued incremental costs relating to the Partnership’s obligations under the sublease to
F-15
return and manage the railcars through lease expiration, and (iii) $8.3 million associated with derecognizing prepaid rent accumulated from the recognition of lease rental expense on a straight‑line basis over the original term of the lease. The $10.7 million of accrued incremental costs include future railcar storage, freight, cleaning, insurance and other services, and were recognized at present value based on the estimated timing of when the costs would be incurred using a discount rate of 10%. These incremental costs will be incurred through August of 2019 in conjunction with the services to be performed by the Partnership under the fleet management services agreement entered into with the counterparty contemporaneously with the sublease termination.
Total cash paid by the Partnership to the counterparty at the time of the lease termination was $76.4 million, consisting of $61.7 million to settle the future lease payments and $14.7 million to cover the incremental costs (including storage, freight, cleaning and insurance) associated with 1,250 of the railcars for which the Partnership was always responsible. The balance of 360 railcars subleased were originally intended for the counterparty’s own commercial use, and the counterparty is, and has always been, responsible for those incremental costs. Pursuant to the fleet management service agreement, in January 2017, the counterparty paid the Partnership $19.1 million to cover the incremental costs associated with all 1,610 railcars that, as of December 31, 2016, were under control of the counterparty as a result of the sublease termination.
The $61.7 million cash settlement of the contractual commitment represented a $10.2 million savings of the Partnership’s lease rental obligations remaining over the lease term through August of 2019. The termination of the sublease eliminates future lease payments of approximately $30.0 million, $29.0 million and $13.0 million in 2017, 2018 and 2019, respectively.
In connection with the sublease termination, the Partnership amended its credit agreement to permit the use of borrowings to make the early termination payment. The amendment also accelerates the step-down in the combined total leverage ratio from 5.50 times to 5.0 times effective with the quarter ended December 31, 2016 and continuing through maturity.
Revenue Recognition
Sales relate primarily to the sale of refined petroleum products, renewable fuels, crude oil, natural gas and propane and are recognized along with the related receivable upon delivery, net of applicable provisions for discounts and allowances. The Partnership may also provide for shipping costs at the time of sale, which are included in cost of sales. In addition, the Partnership generates revenue from its logistics activities when it engages in the storage, transloading and shipment of products owned by others. Revenue for logistics services is recognized as services are provided.
The Partnership has certain logistics agreements that require counterparties to throughput a minimum volume over an agreed-upon period. These agreements may include make-up rights if the minimum volume is not met. The Partnership recognizes revenue associated with make-up rights at the earlier of when the make-up volume is shipped, the make-up right expires or when it is determined that the likelihood that the shipper will utilize the make-up right is remote.
The Partnership also recognizes convenience store sales of gasoline, grocery and other merchandise and commissions on lottery at the time of the sale to the customer. Gasoline station rental income is recognized on a straight‑ line basis over the term of the lease.
Product revenue is not recognized on exchange agreements, which are entered into primarily to acquire various refined petroleum products, renewable fuels and crude oil of a desired quality or to reduce transportation costs by taking delivery of products closer to the Partnership’s end markets. The Partnership recognizes net exchange differentials due from exchange partners in sales upon delivery of product to an exchange partner.
F-16
The amounts recorded for bad debts are generally based upon a specific analysis of aged accounts while also factoring in any new business conditions that might impact the historical analysis, such as market conditions and bankruptcies of particular customers. Bad debt provisions are included in selling, general and administrative expenses.
The Partnership collects trustee taxes, which consist of various pass through taxes collected on behalf of taxing authorities, and remits such taxes directly to those taxing authorities. As such, it is the Partnership’s policy to exclude trustee taxes from revenues and cost of sales and account for them as current liabilities.
Income Taxes
Section 7704 of the Internal Revenue Code provides that publicly‑traded partnerships are, as a general rule, taxed as corporations. However, an exception, referred to as the “Qualifying Income Exception,” exists under Section 7704(c) with respect to publicly‑traded partnerships of which 90% or more of the gross income for every taxable year consists of “qualifying income.” Qualifying income includes income and gains derived from the transportation, storage and marketing of refined petroleum products, crude oil and ethanol to resellers and refiners. Other types of qualifying income include interest (other than from a financial business), dividends, gains from the sale of real property and gains from the sale or other disposition of capital assets held for the production of income that otherwise constitutes qualifying income.
Substantially all of the Partnership’s income is “qualifying income” for federal income tax purposes and, therefore, is not subject to federal income taxes at the partnership level. Accordingly, no provision has been made for income taxes on the qualifying income in the Partnership’s financial statements. Net income for financial statement purposes may differ significantly from taxable income reportable to unitholders as a result of differences between the tax basis and financial reporting basis of assets and liabilities and the taxable income allocation requirements under the Partnership’s agreement of limited partnership. Individual unitholders have different investment basis depending upon the timing and price at which they acquired their common units. Further, each unitholder’s tax accounting, which is partially dependent upon the unitholder’s tax position, differs from the accounting followed in the Partnership’s consolidated financial statements. Accordingly, the aggregate difference in the basis of the Partnership’s net assets for financial and tax reporting purposes cannot be readily determined because information regarding each unitholder’s tax attributes in the Partnership is not available to the Partnership.
One of the Partnership’s wholly owned subsidiaries, GMG, is a taxable entity for federal and state income tax purposes. Current and deferred income taxes are recognized on the separate earnings of GMG. The after‑tax earnings of GMG are included in the earnings of the Partnership. Deferred income taxes reflect the net tax effects of temporary differences between the carrying amounts of assets and liabilities for financial reporting purposes and the amounts used for income tax purposes for GMG. Deferred tax assets and liabilities are recognized for the future tax consequences attributable to differences between the financial statement carrying amounts of existing assets and liabilities and their respective tax basis. Deferred tax assets and liabilities are measured using enacted tax rates expected to apply to taxable income in the years in which those temporary differences are expected to be recovered or settled. The effect on deferred tax assets and liabilities of a change in tax rates is recognized in income in the period that includes the enactment date. The Partnership calculates its current and deferred tax provision based on estimates and assumptions that could differ from actual results reflected in income tax returns filed in subsequent years. Adjustments based on filed returns are recorded when identified. See Note 11.
On July 1, 2015 the Partnership commenced business in Canada through its wholly owned Canadian subsidiary, Global Partners Energy Canada, ULC (“GPEC”). GPEC predominantly consists of sourcing crude oil and other petroleum based products for sale to the Partnership and customers in Canada. GPEC is a taxable entity for Canadian corporate income and branch taxes. In its first year of operations, GPEC realized a pre-tax loss generating a net operating loss that might be used to offset future taxable income when GPEC operates at a profit. The Partnership recognizes deferred tax assets to the extent that the recoverability of these assets satisfies the “more likely than not” recognition
F-17
criteria in accordance with the accounting guidance regarding income taxes. Based upon projections of future taxable income, limited capital assets and market conditions, the Partnership has provided a full valuation allowance against the GPEC deferred tax asset. See Note 11.
Foreign Currency Transactions
Gains/(losses) realized from transactions denominated in foreign currencies are included in cost of sales in the consolidated statements of operations and totaled ($251,000), ($714,000) and ($25,000) for the years ended December 31, 2016, 2015 and 2014, respectively.
Concentration of Risk
Financial instruments that potentially subject the Partnership to concentration of credit risk consist primarily of cash, cash equivalents, accounts receivable, firm commitments and, under certain circumstances, futures contracts, forward fixed price contracts, options and swap agreements, all of which may be used to hedge commodity and interest rate risks. The Partnership invests excess cash in investment‑grade securities. The Partnership provides credit in the normal course of its business. The Partnership performs ongoing credit evaluations of its customers and provides for credit losses based on specific information and historical trends. Credit risk on trade receivables is minimized as a result of the Partnership’s large customer base. Losses have historically been within management’s expectations. See Note 7 for a discussion regarding risk of credit loss related to futures contracts, forward fixed price contracts, options and swap agreements. The Partnership’s wholesale and commercial customers of refined petroleum products, renewable fuels, crude oil, natural gas and propane are primarily located in the Northeast. The Partnership’s retail gasoline stations and directly operated convenience stores are located in the Northeast, Maryland and Virginia.
Due to the nature of the Partnership’s business and its reliance, in part, on consumer travel and spending patterns, the Partnership may experience more demand for gasoline during the late spring and summer months than during the fall and winter. Travel and recreational activities are typically higher in these months in the geographic areas in which the Partnership operates, increasing the demand for gasoline. Therefore, the Partnership’s volumes in gasoline are typically higher in the second and third quarters of the calendar year. As demand for some of the Partnership’s refined petroleum products, specifically home heating oil and residual oil for space heating purposes, is generally greater during the winter months, heating oil and residual oil volumes are generally higher during the first and fourth quarters of the calendar year. These factors may result in fluctuations in the Partnership’s quarterly operating results.
The following table presents the Partnership’s product sales and other revenues as a percentage of the consolidated sales for the years ended December 31:
|
|
2016 |
|
2015 |
|
2014 |
|
Gasoline sales: gasoline and gasoline blendstocks (such as ethanol) |
|
64 |
% |
59 |
% |
60 |
% |
Crude oil sales and crude oil logistics revenue |
|
7 |
% |
12 |
% |
14 |
% |
Distillates (home heating oil, diesel and kerosene), residual oil, natural gas and propane sales |
|
24 |
% |
25 |
% |
25 |
% |
Convenience store sales, rental income and sundry sales |
|
5 |
% |
4 |
% |
1 |
% |
Total |
|
100 |
% |
100 |
% |
100 |
% |
F-18
The following table presents the Partnership’s product margin by segment as a percentage of the consolidated product margin for the years ended December 31:
|
|
2016 |
|
2015 |
|
2014 |
|
Wholesale segment |
23 |
% |
30 |
% |
48 |
% |
|
GDSO segment |
|
73 |
% |
66 |
% |
47 |
% |
Commercial segment |
|
4 |
% |
4 |
% |
5 |
% |
Total |
|
100 |
% |
100 |
% |
100 |
% |
See Note 19, “Segment Reporting,” for additional information on the Partnership’s operating segments.
The Partnership is dependent on a number of suppliers of fuel‑related products, both domestically and internationally. The Partnership is dependent on the suppliers being able to source product on a timely basis and at favorable pricing terms. The loss of certain principal suppliers or a significant reduction in product availability from principal suppliers could have a material adverse effect on the Partnership, at least in the near term. The Partnership believes that its relationships with its suppliers are satisfactory and that the loss of any principal supplier could be replaced by new or existing suppliers.
Derivative Financial Instruments
The Partnership principally uses derivative instruments, which include regulated exchange-traded futures and options contracts (collectively, “exchange-traded derivatives”) and physical and financial forwards and over-the counter (“OTC”) swaps (collectively, “OTC derivatives”), to reduce its exposure to unfavorable changes in commodity market prices and interest rates. The Partnership uses these exchange-traded and OTC derivatives to hedge commodity price risk associated with its inventory and undelivered forward commodity purchases and sales (“physical forward contracts”) and uses interest rate swap instruments to reduce its exposure to fluctuations in interest rates associated with the Partnership’s credit facilities. The Partnership accounts for derivative transactions in accordance with ASC Topic 815, “Derivatives and Hedging,” and recognizes derivatives instruments as either assets or liabilities in the consolidated balance sheet and measures those instruments at fair value. The changes in fair value of the derivative transactions are presented currently in earnings, unless specific hedge accounting criteria are met.
The fair value of exchange-traded derivative transactions reflects amounts that would be received from or paid to the Partnership’s brokers upon liquidation of these contracts. The fair value of these exchange-traded derivative transactions are presented on a net basis, offset by the cash balances on deposit with the Partnership’s brokers, presented as brokerage margin deposits in the consolidated balance sheets. The fair value of OTC derivative transactions reflects amounts that would be received from or paid to a third party upon liquidation of these contracts under current market conditions. The fair value of these OTC derivative transactions is presented on a gross basis as derivative assets or derivative liabilities in the consolidated balance sheets, unless a legal right of offset exists. The presentation of the change in fair value of the Partnership’s exchange-traded derivatives and OTC derivative transactions depends on the intended use of the derivative and the resulting designation.
Derivatives Accounted for as Hedges – The Partnership utilizes fair value hedges and cash flow hedges to hedge commodity price risk and interest rate risk.
Fair Value Hedges
Derivatives designated as fair value hedges are used to hedge price risk in commodity inventories and principally include exchange-traded futures contracts that are entered into in the ordinary course of business. For a derivative instrument designated as a fair value hedge, the gain or loss is recognized in earnings in the period of change together with the offsetting change in fair value on the hedged item of the risk being hedged. Gains and losses related to
F-19
fair value hedges are recognized in the consolidated statement of operations through cost of sales. These futures contracts are settled on a daily basis by the Partnership through brokerage margin accounts.
Cash Flow Hedges
Derivatives designated as cash flow hedges are used to hedge interest rate risk from fluctuations in interest rates and may include various interest rate derivative instruments entered into with major financial institutions. For a derivative instrument being designated as a cash flow hedge, the effective portion of the derivative gain or loss is initially reported as a component of other comprehensive income (loss) and subsequently reclassified into the consolidated statement of operations through interest expense in the same period that the hedged exposure affects earnings. The ineffective portion is recognized in the consolidated statement of operations immediately.
Derivatives Not Accounted for as Hedges – The Partnership utilizes petroleum and ethanol commodity contracts, natural gas commodity contracts and foreign currency derivatives to hedge price and currency risk in certain commodity inventories and physical forward contracts.
Petroleum and Ethanol Commodity Contracts
The Partnership uses exchange-traded derivative contracts to hedge price risk in certain commodity inventories which do not qualify for fair value hedge accounting or are not designated by the Partnership as fair value hedges. Additionally, the Partnership uses exchange-traded derivative contracts, and occasionally financial forward and OTC swap agreements, to hedge commodity price exposure associated with its physical forward contracts which are not designated by the Partnership as cash flow hedges. These physical forward contracts, to the extent they meet the definition of a derivative, are considered OTC physical forwards and are reflected as derivative assets or derivative liabilities in the consolidated balance sheet. The related exchange-traded derivative contracts (and financial forward and OTC swaps, if applicable) are also reflected as brokerage margin deposits (and derivative assets or derivative liabilities, if applicable) in the consolidated balance sheet, thereby creating an economic hedge. Changes in fair value of these derivative instruments are recognized in the consolidated statement of operations through cost of sales. These exchange-traded derivatives are settled on a daily basis by the Partnership through brokerage margin accounts.
While the Partnership seeks to maintain a position that is substantially balanced within its commodity product purchase and sale activities, it may experience net unbalanced positions for short periods of time as a result of variances in daily purchases and sales and transportation and delivery schedules as well as other logistical issues inherent in the business, such as weather conditions. In connection with managing these positions, the Partnership is aided by maintaining a constant presence in the marketplace. The Partnership also engages in a controlled trading program for up to an aggregate of 250,000 barrels of commodity products at any one point in time. Changes in fair value of these derivative instruments are recognized in the consolidated statement of operations through cost of sales.
Natural Gas Commodity Contracts
The Partnership uses physical forward purchase contracts to hedge price risk associated with the marketing and selling of natural gas to third-party users. These physical forward purchase commitments for natural gas are typically executed when the Partnership enters into physical forward sale commitments of product for physical delivery. These physical forward contracts, to the extent they meet the definition of a derivative, are reflected as derivative assets and derivative liabilities in the consolidated balance sheet. Changes in fair value of the forward purchase and sale commitments are recognized in the consolidated statement of operations through cost of sales.
F-20
Foreign Currency Contracts
The Partnership uses forward foreign currency contracts to hedge certain foreign denominated (Canadian) commodity product purchases. These forward foreign currency contracts are not designated by the Partnership as hedges and are reflected as prepaid expenses and other current assets or accrued expenses and other current liabilities in the consolidated balance sheets. Changes in fair values of these forward foreign currency contracts are reflected in cost of sales.
Margin Deposits
All of the Partnership’s exchange-traded derivative contracts (designated and not designated) are transacted through clearing brokers. The Partnership deposits initial margin with the clearing brokers, along with variation margin, which is paid or received on a daily basis, based upon the changes in fair value of open futures contracts and settlement of closed futures contracts. Cash balances on deposit with clearing brokers and open equity are presented on a net basis within brokerage margin deposits in the consolidated balance sheets.
Please See Note 7 “Derivative Financial Instruments,” for additional information.
Fair Value Measurements
Fair value is defined as the price that would be received to sell an asset or paid to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction between market participants at the measurement date (exit price). The Partnership utilizes market data or assumptions that market participants would use in pricing the asset or liability, including assumptions about risk and the risks inherent in the inputs to the valuation technique. These inputs can be readily observable, market corroborated or generally unobservable. The Partnership primarily applies the market approach for recurring fair value measurements and endeavors to utilize the best available information. Accordingly, the Partnership utilizes valuation techniques that maximize the use of observable inputs and minimize the use of unobservable inputs. The Partnership is able to classify fair value balances based on the observability of those inputs. The fair value hierarchy that prioritizes the inputs used to measure fair value, giving the highest priority to unadjusted quoted prices in active markets for identical assets or liabilities (Level 1 measurement) and the lowest priority to unobservable inputs (Level 3 measurement). At each balance sheet reporting date, the Partnership categorizes its financial assets and liabilities using the three levels of the fair value hierarchy defined as follows:
Level 1—Quoted prices are available in active markets for identical assets or liabilities as of the reporting date. Active markets are those in which transactions for the asset or liability occur in sufficient frequency and volume to provide pricing information on an ongoing basis. Level 1 primarily consists of financial instruments such as the Partnership’s exchange-traded derivative instruments and pension plan assets.
Level 2—Quoted prices in active markets are not available; however, pricing inputs are either directly or indirectly observable as of the reporting date. Level 2 includes those financial instruments that are valued using models or other valuation methodologies. These models are primarily industry-standard models that consider various assumptions, including quoted forward prices for commodities, time value, volatility factors, and current market and contractual prices for the underlying instruments, as well as other relevant economic measures. Substantially all of these assumptions are observable in the marketplace throughout the full term of the instrument, can be derived from observable data or are supported by observable levels at which transactions are executed in the marketplace. Level 2 primarily consists of non-exchange-traded derivatives such as OTC derivatives.
F-21
Level 3—Pricing inputs include significant inputs that are generally less observable from objective sources. These inputs may be used with internally developed methodologies that result in management’s best estimate of fair value. Level 3 includes certain OTC forward derivative instruments related to crude oil and propane.
Please see Note 8, “Fair Value Measurements,” for additional information.
Net (Loss) Income Per Limited Partner Unit
Under the Partnership’s partnership agreement, for any quarterly period, the incentive distribution rights (“IDRs”) participate in net income only to the extent of the amount of cash distributions actually declared, thereby excluding the IDRs from participating in the Partnership’s undistributed net income or losses. Accordingly, the Partnership’s undistributed net income or losses is assumed to be allocated to the common unitholders, or limited partners’ interest, and to the General Partner’s general partner interest.
Common units outstanding as reported in the accompanying consolidated financial statements at December 31, 2016 and 2015 excluded 451,894 and 488,719 common units, respectively, held on behalf of the Partnership pursuant to its repurchase program (see Note 15). These units are not deemed outstanding for purposes of calculating net (loss) income per limited partner unit (basic and diluted).
The following table provides a reconciliation of net (loss) income and the assumed allocation of net (loss) income to the limited partners’ interest for purposes of computing net (loss) income per limited partner unit (in thousands, except per unit data):
|
|
Year Ended December 31, 2016 |
|
||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
Limited |
|
General |
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
Partner |
|
Partner |
|
|
|
|
||
Numerator: |
|
Total |
|
Interest |
|
Interest |
|
IDRs |
|
||||
Net loss attributable to Global Partners LP (1) |
|
$ |
(199,412) |
|
$ |
(198,076) |
|
$ |
(1,336) |
|
$ |
— |
|
Declared distribution |
|
$ |
63,316 |
|
$ |
62,892 |
|
$ |
424 |
|
$ |
— |
|
Assumed allocation of undistributed net loss |
|
|
(262,728) |
|
|
(260,968) |
|
|
(1,760) |
|
|
— |
|
Assumed allocation of net loss |
|
$ |
(199,412) |
|
$ |
(198,076) |
|
$ |
(1,336) |
|
$ |
— |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Denominator: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic weighted average limited partner units outstanding |
|
|
|
|
|
33,525 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dilutive effect of phantom units |
|
|
|
|
|
— |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Diluted weighted average limited partner units outstanding |
|
|
|
|
|
33,525 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic net loss per limited partner unit |
|
|
|
|
$ |
(5.91) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Diluted net loss per limited partner unit (2) |
|
|
|
|
$ |
(5.91) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
The general partner interest was 0.67% for the year ended December 31, 2016. |
(2) |
Basic units were used to calculate diluted net loss per limited partner unit for the year ended December 31, 2016, as using the effects of phantom units would have an anti-dilutive effect on net loss per limited partner unit. |
F-22
|
|
Year Ended December 31, 2015 |
||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
Limited |
|
General |
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
Partner |
|
Partner |
|
|
|
||
Numerator: |
|
Total |
|
Interest |
|
Interest |
|
IDRs |
||||
Net income attributable to Global Partners LP (3) |
|
$ |
43,563 |
|
$ |
35,896 |
|
$ |
7,667 |
|
$ |
— |
Declared distribution |
|
$ |
92,059 |
|
$ |
84,055 |
|
$ |
582 |
|
$ |
7,422 |
Assumed allocation of undistributed net loss |
|
|
(48,496) |
|
|
(48,159) |
|
|
(337) |
|
|
— |
Assumed allocation of net income |
|
$ |
43,563 |
|
$ |
35,896 |
|
$ |
245 |
|
$ |
7,422 |
Denominator: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic weighted average limited partner units outstanding |
|
|
|
|
|
32,178 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dilutive effect of phantom units |
|
|
|
|
|
145 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Diluted weighted average limited partner units outstanding |
|
|
|
|
|
32,323 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic net income per limited partner unit |
|
|
|
|
$ |
1.12 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Diluted net income per limited partner unit |
|
|
|
|
$ |
1.11 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31, 2014 |
||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
Limited |
|
General |
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
Partner |
|
Partner |
|
|
|
||
Numerator: |
|
Total |
|
Interest |
|
Interest |
|
IDRs |
||||
Net income attributable to Global Partners LP (4) |
|
$ |
114,709 |
|
$ |
108,728 |
|
$ |
5,981 |
|
$ |
— |
Declared distribution |
|
$ |
78,771 |
|
$ |
73,143 |
|
$ |
593 |
|
$ |
5,035 |
Assumed allocation of undistributed net income |
|
|
35,938 |
|
|
35,585 |
|
|
353 |
|
|
— |
Assumed allocation of net income |
|
$ |
114,709 |
|
$ |
108,728 |
|
$ |
946 |
|
$ |
5,035 |
Denominator: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic weighted average limited partner units outstanding |
|
|
|
|
|
27,420 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dilutive effect of phantom units |
|
|
|
|
|
82 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Diluted weighted average limited partner units outstanding |
|
|
|
|
|
27,502 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic net income per limited partner unit |
|
|
|
|
$ |
3.97 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Diluted net income per limited partner unit |
|
|
|
|
$ |
3.95 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(3) |
As a result of the June 2015 issuance of 3,000,000 common units (see Note 16), the general partner interest was reduced to 0.67% from 0.74% and was, based on a weighted average, approximately 0.70% for the year ended December 31, 2015. |
(4) |
As a result of the December 2014 issuance of 3,565,000 common units (see Note 16), the general partner interest was 0.74%. |
The board of directors of the General Partner declared the following quarterly cash distributions for the four quarters ended December 31, 2016:
|
|
Per Unit Cash |
|
|
Distribution Declared for the |
|
|
Cash Distribution Declaration Date |
|
Distribution Declared |
|
|
Quarterly Period Ended |
|
|
April 26, 2016 |
|
$ |
0.4625 |
|
|
March 31, 2016 |
|
July 27, 2016 |
|
$ |
0.4625 |
|
|
June 30, 2016 |
|
October 26, 2016 |
|
$ |
0.4625 |
|
|
September 30, 2016 |
|
January 30, 2017 |
|
$ |
0.4625 |
|
|
December 31, 2016 |
|
See Note 16, “Partners’ Equity, Allocations and Cash Distributions” for further information.
F-23
Accounting Standards or Updates Recently Adopted
In September 2015, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) issued Accounting Standards Update (“ASU”) 2015-16, “Business Combinations: Simplifying the Accounting for Measurement-Period Adjustments.” This standard eliminates the requirement that an acquirer in a business combination account for measurement-period adjustments retrospectively. Instead, acquirers must recognize measurement-period adjustments during the period in which they determine the amounts, including the effect on earnings of any amounts they would have recorded in previous periods if the accounting had been completed at the acquisition date. The acquirer still must disclose the amounts and reasons for adjustments to the provisional amounts. The acquirer also must disclose, by line item, the amount of the adjustment reflected in the current-period income statement that would have been recognized in previous periods if the adjustment to provisional amounts had been recognized as of the acquisition date. Alternatively, an acquirer may present those amounts separately on the face of the income statement. The Partnership adopted this standard on January 1, 2016. The adoption of this standard did not have a material impact on the Partnership’s consolidated financial statements.
In August 2014, the FASB issued ASU 2014-15, “Disclosure of Uncertainties about an Entity’s Ability to Continue as a Going Concern.” In connection with preparing financial statements for each annual and interim reporting period, this standard requires an entity’s management to evaluate whether there are conditions or events, considered in the aggregate, that raise substantial doubt about the entity’s ability to continue as a going concern within one year after the date that the financial statements are issued. Certain disclosures are required when management identifies conditions or events that raise substantial doubt. The Partnership adopted this standard as of December 31, 2016. The adoption of this standard did not have a material impact on the Partnership’s consolidated financial statements.
Accounting Standards or Updates Not Yet Effective
In January 2017, the FASB issued ASU 2017-04, “Intangibles-Goodwill and Other.” This standard eliminates step two from the goodwill impairment test, and instead requires an entity to recognize a goodwill impairment charge for the amount by which the goodwill carrying amount exceeds the reporting unit’s fair value. This standard is effective for interim and annual goodwill impairment tests in fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2019, and early adoption is permitted. This standard must be applied on a prospective basis. The Partnership expects to adopt this standard for interim and annual goodwill impairment tests performed on testing dates after January 1, 2017. The adoption of this standard is not expected to have a material impact on the Partnership’s consolidated financial statements.
In January 2017, the FASB issued ASU 2017-01, “Business Combinations: Clarifying the Definition of a Business.” This standard clarifies the definition of a business with the objective of adding guidance to assist entities with evaluating whether transactions should be accounted for as acquisitions (or disposals) of assets or businesses. This standard is effective for annual periods beginning after December 15, 2017 and interim periods within those annual periods. The Partnership is assessing the impact this standard will have on its consolidated financial statements.
In August 2016, the FASB issued ASU 2016-15, “Statement of Cash Flows: Classification of Certain Cash Receipts and Cash Payments.” This standard reduces diversity in practice in how certain transactions are classified in the statement of cash flows by addressing eight specific cash receipt and cash payment issues. This standard is effective for annual periods beginning after December 15, 2017 and interim periods within those annual periods, with early adoption permitted. The Partnership is assessing the impact this standard will have on its consolidated financial statements.
In June 2016, the FASB issued ASU 2016-13, “Measurement of Credit Losses on Financial Instruments.” This standard requires that for most financial assets, losses be based on an expected loss approach which includes estimates of losses over the life of exposure that considers historical, current and forecasted information. Expanded disclosures related to the methods used to estimate the losses as well as a specific disaggregation of balances for financial assets are also required. This standard is effective for annual periods beginning after December 15, 2019 and interim periods within
F-24
those annual periods, with early adoption permitted for annual periods beginning after December 15, 2018. The Partnership is assessing the impact this standard will have on its consolidated financial statements.
In March 2016, the FASB issued ASU 2016-09, “Compensation-Stock Compensation: Improvements to Employee Share-Based Payment Accounting.” This standard simplifies several aspects of the accounting for share-based payment award transactions, including accounting for income taxes and classification of excess tax benefits on the statement of cash flows, forfeitures and minimum statutory tax withholding requirements. This standard is effective for annual periods beginning after December 15, 2016 and interim periods within those annual periods. Early adoption is permitted for any interim or annual period. The adoption of this standard is not expected to have a material impact on the Partnership’s consolidated financial statements.
In March 2016, the FASB issued ASU 2016-05, “Derivatives and Hedging: Effect of Derivative Contract Novations on Existing Hedge Accounting Relationships.” This standard clarifies that a change in the counterparty to a derivative instrument that has been designated as a hedging instrument does not, in and of itself, require dedesignation of that hedging relationship provided that all other hedge accounting criteria continue to be met. This standard is effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2016 and interim periods within those fiscal years. Early adoption is permitted, including adoption in an interim period. The adoption of this standard is not expected to have a material impact on the Partnership’s consolidated financial statements.
In February 2016, the FASB issued ASU 2016-02, “Leases.” This standard amends the existing accounting standards for lease accounting, including requiring lessees to recognize most leases on their balance sheets and making targeted changes to lessor accounting. This standard is effective beginning in the first quarter of 2019. Early adoption of this standard is permitted. The standard requires a modified retrospective transition approach for all leases existing at, or entered into after, the date of initial application, with an option to use certain transition relief. The Partnership is assessing the impact this standard will have on its consolidated financial statements.
In January 2016, the FASB issued ASU 2016-01, “Financial Instruments - Recognition and Measurement of Financial Assets and Financial Liabilities”. This standard revises the classification and measurement of investments in certain equity investments and the presentation of certain fair value changes for certain financial liabilities measured at fair value. This standard also requires the change in fair value of many equity investments to be recognized in net income. This standard is effective for interim and annual periods beginning after December 15, 2017, with early adoption permitted. The adoption of this standard is not expected to have a material impact on the Partnership’s consolidated financial statements.
In July 2015, the FASB issued ASU 2015-11, “Simplifying the Measurement of Inventory,” which requires an entity to measure inventory within the scope of the amendment at the lower of cost and net realizable value. Net realizable value is the estimated selling price in the ordinary course of business, less reasonably predictable costs of completion, disposal, and transportation. The new standard is effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2016, including interim periods within those fiscal years. The adoption of this standard is not expected to have a material impact on the Partnership’s consolidated financial statements.
In May 2014, the FASB issued ASU 2014-09, “Revenue from Contracts with Customers” (“ASU 2014-09”) and has modified the standard thereafter. This standard, as amended, replaces existing revenue recognition rules with a comprehensive revenue measurement and recognition standard and expanded disclosure requirements. ASU 2014-09, as amended, becomes effective for annual reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2017, at which point the Partnership plans to adopt the standard. The Partnership is evaluating the impact this standard will have on its consolidated financial statements. To perform the evaluation, the Partnership established a cross-functional implementation team consisting of representatives from across all of the Partnership’s operating segments. Based on initial evaluation efforts performed, the Partnership expects that a portion of its current and prospective revenue will be outside the scope of the standard. Of the Partnership’s revenue recognized for the year ended December 31, 2016,
F-25
approximately 40% originated as forward physical contracts (within the Wholesale and Commercial segments) which are accounted for as derivatives and are outside the scope of ASU 2014-09.
The FASB allows two adoption methods under ASU 2014-09. Under one method, an entity will apply the rules to contracts in all reporting periods presented, subject to certain allowable exceptions. Under the other method, an entity will apply the rules to all contracts existing as of January 1, 2018, recognizing in beginning retained earnings an adjustment for the cumulative effect of the change and providing additional disclosures comparing results to previous rules (“modified retrospective method”). The Partnership will continue to evaluate the available adoption methods.
Note 3. Goodwill and Intangible Assets
The following table presents changes in goodwill by segment (in thousands):
|
|
Goodwill Allocated to |
|
|
|
|
||||
|
|
Wholesale |
|
GDSO |
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Reporting |
|
Reporting |
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Unit |
|
Unit |
|
Total |
|
|||
Balance at December 31, 2014 |
|
$ |
121,752 |
|
$ |
32,326 |
|
$ |
154,078 |
|
Acquisition of Warren Equities, Inc. |
|
|
— |
|
|
186,437 |
|
|
186,437 |
|
Acquisition of Capitol Petroleum Group |
|
|
— |
|
|
94,854 |
|
|
94,854 |
|
Balance at December 31, 2015 |
|
|
121,752 |
|
|
313,617 |
|
|
435,369 |
|
Impairment (1) |
|
|
(121,752) |
|
|
— |
|
|
(121,752) |
|
Disposals |
|
|
— |
|
|
(17,920) |
|
|
(17,920) |
|
Other activity (2) |
|
|
— |
|
|
(929) |
|
|
(929) |
|
Balance at December 31, 2016 |
|
$ |
— |
|
$ |
294,768 |
|
$ |
294,768 |
|
(1) |
See Note 2 for a description of the facts and circumstances related to the impairment charges recognized in 2016. |
(2) |
Other activity represents changes to goodwill as a result of finalizing the acquisition accounting related to the acquisition of Warren Equities, Inc. (see Note 18). |
F-26
Intangible assets consisted of the following (in thousands):
|
|
Gross |
|
|
|
|
Net |
|
|
|
||
|
|
Carrying |
|
Accumulated |
|
Intangible |
|
Amortization |
|
|||
|
|
Amount |
|
Amortization |
|
Assets |
|
Period |
|
|||
At December 31, 2016 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Intangible assets subject to amortization: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Terminalling services |
|
$ |
26,365 |
|
$ |
(12,423) |
|
$ |
13,942 |
|
20 years |
|
Customer relationships |
|
|
43,986 |
|
|
(40,323) |
|
|
3,663 |
|
2-15 years |
|
Supply contracts |
|
|
77,771 |
|
|
(31,674) |
|
|
46,097 |
|
5-15 years |
|
Favorable leasehold interests |
|
|
2,960 |
|
|
(2,086) |
|
|
874 |
|
2-5 years |
|
Brand incentive program |
|
|
1,445 |
|
|
(1,276) |
|
|
169 |
|
5 years |
|
Other intangible assets |
|
|
779 |
|
|
(511) |
|
|
268 |
|
20 years |
|
Total intangible assets |
|
$ |
153,306 |
|
$ |
(88,293) |
|
$ |
65,013 |
|
|
|
At December 31, 2015 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Intangible assets subject to amortization: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Terminalling services |
|
$ |
26,365 |
|
$ |
(11,087) |
|
$ |
15,278 |
|
20 years |
|
Customer relationships |
|
|
43,986 |
|
|
(39,691) |
|
|
4,295 |
|
2-15 years |
|
Supply contracts |
|
|
77,771 |
|
|
(24,412) |
|
|
53,359 |
|
5-15 years |
|
Favorable leasehold interests |
|
|
2,960 |
|
|
(794) |
|
|
2,166 |
|
2-5 years |
|
Brand incentive program |
|
|
1,445 |
|
|
(1,117) |
|
|
328 |
|
5 years |
|
Other intangible assets |
|
|
779 |
|
|
(511) |
|
|
268 |
|
20 years |
|
Total intangible assets |
|
$ |
153,306 |
|
$ |
(77,612) |
|
$ |
75,694 |
|
|
|
The aggregate amortization expense was approximately $9.4 million, $13.5 million and $18.9 million for the years ended December 31, 2016, 2015 and 2014, respectively. In addition, in connection with the 2015 acquisitions of Warren and Capitol, the Partnership recognized amortization expense related to leasehold interests of $1.3 million and $0.8 million in 2016 and 2015, respectively. The decrease in amortization expense in 2016 compared to 2015 and in 2015 compared to 2014 was due to intangible assets that became fully amortized during 2015.
The estimated annual intangible asset amortization expense for future years ending December 31 is as follows (in thousands):
2017 |
|
$ |
9,638 |
|
2018 |
|
|
9,060 |
|
2019 |
|
|
9,035 |
|
2020 |
|
|
8,897 |
|
2021 |
|
|
8,897 |
|
Thereafter |
|
|
19,486 |
|
Total intangible assets |
|
$ |
65,013 |
|
F-27
Note 4. Property and Equipment
Property and equipment consisted of the following at December 31 (in thousands):
|
|
2016 |
|
2015 |
|
||
Buildings and improvements |
|
$ |
984,373 |
|
$ |
992,917 |
|
Land |
|
|
418,025 |
|
|
450,045 |
|
Fixtures and equipment |
|
|
40,354 |
|
|
40,946 |
|
Idle plant assets |
|
|
30,500 |
|
|
30,500 |
|
Construction in process |
|
|
42,069 |
|
|
36,580 |
|
Capitalized internal use software |
|
|
20,097 |
|
|
18,852 |
|
Total property and equipment |
|
|
1,535,418 |
|
|
1,569,840 |
|
Less accumulated depreciation |
|
|
435,519 |
|
|
327,157 |
|
Total |
|
$ |
1,099,899 |
|
$ |
1,242,683 |
|
Property and equipment includes assets held for sale of $17.5 million and $7.4 million at December 31, 2016 and 2015, respectively (see Note 5). See Note 24 for assets held for sale subsequent to December 31, 2016.
At December 31, 2016, the Partnership had a $63.0 million remaining net book value of long-lived assets at its West Coast facility, including $30.5 million related to the Partnership’s ethanol plant acquired in 2013. In 2016, the Partnership shifted the facility from crude oil to ethanol transloading and has begun transloading ethanol. The Partnership would, however, need to take certain measures to prepare the facility for ethanol production in order to place the plant into service. Therefore, the $30.5 million related to the ethanol plant was included in property and equipment and classified as idle plant assets at December 31, 2016 and 2015. Previously the plant asset had been included in property and equipment classified as construction in process. As the Partnership continues to monitor the business development of this facility, the plant was reclassified within property and equipment as an idle plant given the uncertainty as to when the plant might be placed into service. The prior year balance of the plant asset has been reclassified to conform to the current year presentation.
If the Partnership is unable to generate cash flows to support the recoverability of the plant and facility assets, this may become an indicator of potential impairment of the West Coast facility. Associated with the fair value appraisals determined by third-party valuation specialists in support of the Partnership’s step two goodwill impairment test, the Partnership received an estimated fair value for the West Coast facility significantly in excess of the $63.0 million remaining net book value. The estimated fair value obtained was based on market comparable transactions for sale of ethanol plant assets, both active and idle, at the time of sale. While the fair value analysis was not prepared or obtained to support the recoverability of the West Coast facility or idle plant assets, the Partnership does not believe that changes in assumptions would impact the estimated fair value such that it might result in a fair value estimate of the West Coast facility that would be less than the $63.0 million net book value at December 31, 2016. The Partnership will monitor the market for ethanol, the continued business development of this facility for either ethanol or crude oil transloading, and the related impact this may have on the facility’s operating cash flows and whether this would constitute an impairment indicator.
Construction in process in 2016 included $20.0 million in costs associated with the Partnership’s terminals, which primarily included investments in information technology and tank construction projects and $22.1 million in costs related to the Partnership’s gasoline stations.
Construction in process in 2015 included $23.1 million in costs associated with the Partnership’s terminals, which primarily included dock expansion, tank construction projects, rail expansion and improvements, various upgrades at certain terminals and investments in information technology and $13.5 million in costs related to the Partnership’s gasoline stations.
F-28
Depreciation
Depreciation expense allocated to cost of sales was approximately $95.6 million, $94.8 million and $61.4 million for the years ended December 31, 2016, 2015 and 2014, respectively. The increase in 2015 compared to 2014 was due primarily to the January 2015 acquisition of Warren and the June 2015 acquisition of Capitol.
Depreciation expense allocated to selling, general and administrative expenses was approximately $7.0 million, $7.5 million and $6.1 million for the years ended December 31, 2016, 2015 and 2014, respectively. The increase in 2015 compared to 2014 was due primarily to the January 2015 acquisition of Warren and the June 2015 acquisition of Capitol.
Note 5. Sale and Disposition of Assets
The following table provides the Partnership’s (gain) loss on sale and dispositions of assets for the years ended December 31 (in thousands):
|
|
2016 |
|
2015 |
|
2014 |
|
|||
Periodic divestiture of gasoline stations |
|
$ |
396 |
|
$ |
1,095 |
|
$ |
706 |
|
Strategic asset divestiture program - Mirabito Disposition |
|
|
3,868 |
|
|
— |
|
|
— |
|
Strategic asset divestiture program - Real estate firm coordinated sale |
|
|
1,115 |
|
|
— |
|
|
— |
|
Loss on assets held for sale |
|
|
14,952 |
|
|
234 |
|
|
1,473 |
|
Other |
|
|
164 |
|
|
768 |
|
|
3 |
|
Total |
|
$ |
20,495 |
|
$ |
2,097 |
|
$ |
2,182 |
|
Periodic Divestiture of Gasoline Stations
As part of the routine course of operations in the GDSO segment, the Partnership may periodically divest certain gasoline stations. The gain or loss on the sale, representing cash proceeds less net book value of assets and recognized liabilities at disposition, net of settlement and dispositions costs, is recorded in net loss on sale and disposition of assets in the accompanying consolidated statements of operations and amounted to losses of $0.4 million, $1.1 million and $0.7 million for the years ended December 31, 2016, 2015 and 2014.
Strategic Asset Divestiture Program
The Partnership identified certain non-strategic GDSO sites that are part of its Strategic Asset Divestiture Program (the “Divestiture Program”).
Mirabito Disposition—On August 22, 2016, Drake Petroleum Company, Inc., an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of the Partnership, completed its sale to Mirabito Holdings, Inc. (“Mirabito”) of 30 gasoline stations and convenience stores located in New York and Pennsylvania (the “Drake Sites”) for an aggregate total cash purchase price of approximately $40.0 million (the “Mirabito Disposition”). The Drake Sites are a portion of the sites that were acquired by the Partnership in connection with the acquisition of Warren on January 7, 2015 (see Note 18).
The gain or loss on the sale, representing cash proceeds less net book value of assets and recognized liabilities at disposition, net of settlement and dispositions costs, is recorded in net loss on sale and disposition of assets in the accompanying consolidated statements of operations and amounted to a $3.9 million loss for the year ended December 31, 2016, including the derecognition of $12.8 million of GDSO goodwill.
Real Estate Firm Coordinated Sale—The Partnership has retained a real estate firm that is coordinating the sale of approximately 80 non-strategic GDSO sites. As of December 31, 2016, the Partnership completed the sale of 29 of these sites. The gain or loss on the sale, representing cash proceeds less net book value of assets and recognized
F-29
liabilities at disposition, net of settlement and dispositions costs, is recorded in net loss on sale and disposition of assets in the accompanying consolidated statement of operations and amounted to a $1.1 million loss for the year ended December 31, 2016, including the derecognition of $5.1 million of GDSO goodwill. As of December 31, 2016, the criteria to be presented as held for sale was met for 30 of the remaining sites. Through February 2017, such criteria was met for an additional 9 sites (see Note 24).
Loss on Assets Held for Sale
In conjunction with the periodic divestiture of gasoline stations and the sale of sites within the Divestiture Program, the Partnership may classify certain gasoline station assets as held for sale.
The Partnership classified 17 sites and 15 sites as held for sale at December 31, 2016 and 2015, respectively, which are periodic divestiture gasoline station sites. The Partnership recorded impairment charges related to these assets held for sale in the amount of $5.6 million, $0.2 million and $1.5 million for the year ended December 31, 2016, 2015 and 2014, respectively, which are included in net loss on sale and disposition of assets in the accompanying consolidated statements of operations.
Additionally, the Partnership classified 30 sites associated with the real estate firm coordinated sale discussed above as held for sale at December 31, 2016. The Partnership recorded impairment charges related to these assets held for sale in the amount of $9.4 million for the year ended December 31, 2016, which are included in net loss on sale and disposition of assets in the accompanying consolidated statement of operations.
Assets held for sale of $17.5 million and $7.4 million at December 31, 2016 and 2015, respectively, are included in property and equipment in the accompanying balance sheets. Assets held for sale are expected to be sold within the next 12 months.
Other
The Partnership recognizes gains and losses on the sale and disposition of other assets, including vehicles, fixtures and equipment, and the gain or loss on such other assets are included in other in the aforementioned table.
Note 6. Debt and Financing Obligations
Credit Agreement
Certain subsidiaries of the Partnership, as borrowers, and the Partnership and certain of its subsidiaries, as guarantors, have a $1.475 billion senior secured credit facility (the “Credit Agreement”). The Credit Agreement will mature on April 30, 2018.
As of December 31, 2016, the two facilities under the Credit Agreement included:
· |
a working capital revolving credit facility to be used for working capital purposes and letters of credit in the principal amount equal to the lesser of the Partnership’s borrowing base and $900.0 million; and |
· |
a $575.0 million revolving credit facility to be used for acquisitions, joint ventures, capital expenditures, letters of credit and general corporate purposes. |
In addition, the Credit Agreement has an accordion feature whereby the Partnership may request on the same terms and conditions of its then‑existing credit agreement, provided no Event of Default (as defined in the Credit Agreement) then exists, an increase to the working capital revolving credit facility, the revolving credit facility, or both,
F-30
by up to another $300.0 million, in the aggregate for a total credit facility of up to $1.775 billion. The Partnership cannot provide assurance, however, that its lending group will agree to fund any request by the Partnership for additional amounts in excess of the total available commitments of $1.475 billion.
In addition, the Credit Agreement includes a swing line pursuant to which Bank of America, N.A., as the swing line lender, may make swing line loans in U.S. Dollars in an aggregate amount equal to the lesser of (a) $50.0 million and (b) the Aggregate WC Commitments (as defined in the Credit Agreement). Swing line loans will bear interest at the Base Rate (as defined in the Credit Agreement). The swing line is a sub‑portion of the working capital revolving credit facility and is not an addition to the total available commitments of $1.475 billion.
Pursuant to the Credit Agreement, and in connection with any agreement by and between a Loan Party and a Lender (as such terms are defined in the Credit Agreement) or affiliate thereof (an “AR Buyer”), a Loan Party may sell certain of its accounts receivables to an AR Buyer. The Loan Parties are permitted to sell or transfer any account receivable to an AR Buyer only pursuant to the provisions provided in the Credit Agreement. To date, the level of receivables sold has not been significant, and the Partnership has accounted for such transfers as sales pursuant to ASC 860, “Transfers and Servicing.” Due to the short term nature of the receivables sold to date, no servicing obligation has been recorded because it would have been de minimis.
Availability under the working capital revolving credit facility is subject to a borrowing base which is redetermined from time to time based on specific advance rates on eligible current assets. Under the Credit Agreement, borrowings under the working capital revolving credit facility cannot exceed the then current borrowing base. Availability under the borrowing base may be affected by events beyond the Partnership’s control, such as changes in petroleum product prices, collection cycles, counterparty performance, advance rates and limits and general economic conditions. These and other events could require the Partnership to seek waivers or amendments of covenants or alternative sources of financing or to reduce expenditures. The Partnership can provide no assurance that such waivers, amendments or alternative financing could be obtained or, if obtained, would be on terms acceptable to the Partnership.
Borrowings under the working capital revolving credit facility bear interest at (1) the Eurocurrency rate plus 2.00% to 2.50%, (2) the cost of funds rate plus 2.00% to 2.50%, or (3) the base rate plus 1.00% to 1.50%, each depending on the Utilization Amount (as defined in the Credit Agreement). Borrowings under the revolving credit facility bear interest at (1) the Eurocurrency rate plus 2.25% to 3.50%, (2) the cost of funds rate plus 2.25% to 3.50%, or (3) the base rate plus 1.25% to 2.50%, each depending on the Combined Total Leverage Ratio (as defined in the Credit Agreement).
The average interest rates for the Credit Agreement were 3.5%, 3.6% and 3.7% for the years ended December 31, 2016, 2015 and 2014, respectively. The decline in the average interest rates is due to the May 2016 expiration of an interest rate swap.
As of December 31, 2016, the Partnership had one interest rate swap which was used to hedge the variability in interest payments under the Credit Agreement due to changes in LIBOR rates. See Note 2 and Note 7 for additional information.
The Credit Agreement provides for a letter of credit fee equal to the then applicable working capital rate or then applicable revolver rate (each such rate as defined in the Credit Agreement) per annum for each letter of credit issued. In addition, the Partnership incurs a commitment fee on the unused portion of each facility under the Credit Agreement, ranging from 0.375% to 0.50% per annum.
The Partnership classifies a portion of its working capital revolving credit facility as a current liability and a portion as a long-term liability. The portion classified as a long-term liability represents the amounts expected to be outstanding during the entire year based on an analysis of historical daily borrowings under the working capital
F-31
revolving credit facility, the seasonality of borrowings, forecasted future working capital requirements and forward product curves, and because the Partnership has a multi-year, long-term commitment from its bank group. Accordingly, at December 31, 2016, the Partnership estimated working capital revolving credit facility borrowings will equal or exceed $150.0 million over the next twelve months and, therefore, classified $274.6 million as the current portion at December 31, 2016, representing the amount the Partnership expects to pay down over the next 12 months. The long-term portion of the working capital revolving credit facility was $150.0 million and $150.0 million at December 31, 2016 and 2015, respectively, and the current portion was $274.6 million and $98.1 million at December 31, 2016 and 2015, respectively. The increase in total borrowings under the working capital revolving credit facility of $176.5 million from December 31, 2015 was primarily due to an increase in inventories and accounts receivable due to higher prices.
As of December 31, 2016, the Partnership had total borrowings outstanding under the Credit Agreement of $641.3 million, including $216.7 million outstanding on the revolving credit facility. In addition, the Partnership had outstanding letters of credit of $68.9 million. Subject to borrowing base limitations, the total remaining availability for borrowings and letters of credit was $764.8 million and $1.2 billion at December 31, 2016 and 2015, respectively.
The Credit Agreement is secured by substantially all of the assets of the Partnership and the Partnership’s wholly owned subsidiaries and is guaranteed by the Partnership and its subsidiaries with the exception of Basin Transload.
The Credit Agreement imposes certain requirements on the borrowers including, for example, a prohibition against distributions if any potential default or Event of Default (as defined in the Credit Agreement) would occur as a result thereof, and certain limitations on the Partnership’s ability to grant liens, make certain loans or investments, incur additional indebtedness or guarantee other indebtedness, make any material change to the nature of the Partnership’s business or undergo a fundamental change, make any material dispositions, acquire another company, enter into a merger, consolidation, sale leaseback transaction or purchase of assets, or make capital expenditures in excess of specified levels.
The Credit Agreement imposes financial covenants that require the Partnership to maintain certain minimum working capital amounts, a minimum combined interest coverage ratio, a maximum senior secured leverage ratio and a maximum total leverage ratio. The Partnership was in compliance with the foregoing covenants at December 31, 2016. The Credit Agreement also contains a representation whereby there can be no event or circumstance, either individually or in the aggregate, that has had or could reasonably be expected to have a Material Adverse Effect (as defined in the Credit Agreement). In addition, the Credit Agreement limits distributions by the Partnership to its unitholders to the amount of Available Cash (as defined in the Partnership’s partnership agreement).
6.25% Senior Notes
On June 19, 2014, the Partnership and GLP Finance Corp. (“GLP Finance” and, together with the Partnership, the “Issuers”) entered into a Purchase Agreement (the “Purchase Agreement”) with the Initial Purchasers (as defined therein) (the “Initial Purchasers”) pursuant to which the Issuers agreed to sell $375.0 million aggregate principal amount of the Issuers’ 6.25% senior notes due 2022 (the “6.25% Notes”) to the Initial Purchasers in a private placement exempt from the registration requirements under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “Securities Act”). The 6.25% Notes were resold by the Initial Purchasers to qualified institutional buyers pursuant to Rule 144A under the Securities Act and to persons outside the United States pursuant to Regulation S under the Securities Act.
The Purchase Agreement contained customary representations and warranties of the parties and indemnification and contribution provisions under which the Issuers and the subsidiary guarantors, on one hand, and the Initial Purchasers, on the other, agreed to indemnify each other against certain liabilities, including liabilities under the Securities Act. In addition, the Purchase Agreement required the execution of a registration rights agreement, described below, relating to the 6.25% Notes. Closing of the offering occurred on June 24, 2014.
F-32
Indenture
In connection with the private placement of the 6.25% Notes on June 24, 2014, the Issuers and the subsidiary guarantors and Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, as trustee, entered into an indenture (the “Indenture”).
The 6.25% Notes mature on July 15, 2022 with interest accruing at a rate of 6.25% per annum and payable semi-annually in arrears on January 15 and July 15 of each year, commencing January 15, 2015. The 6.25% Notes are guaranteed on a joint and several senior unsecured basis by each of the Issuers and the subsidiary guarantors to the extent set forth in the Indenture. Upon a continuing event of default, the trustee or the holders of at least 25% in principal amount of the 6.25% Notes may declare the 6.25% Notes immediately due and payable, except that an event of default resulting from entry into a bankruptcy, insolvency or reorganization with respect to the Partnership, any restricted subsidiary of the Partnership that is a significant subsidiary or any group of its restricted subsidiaries that, taken together, would constitute a significant subsidiary of the Partnership, will automatically cause the 6.25% Notes to become due and payable.
The Issuers have the option to redeem up to 35% of the 6.25% Notes prior to July 15, 2017 at a redemption price (expressed as a percentage of principal amount) of 106.25% plus accrued and unpaid interest, if any. The Issuers have the option to redeem the 6.25% Notes, in whole or in part, at any time on or after July 15, 2017, at the redemption prices of 104.688% for the twelve-month period beginning on July 15, 2017, 103.125% for the twelve-month period beginning July 15, 2018, 101.563% for the twelve-month period beginning July 15, 2019, and 100.0% beginning on July 15, 2020 and at any time thereafter, together with any accrued and unpaid interest to the date of redemption. In addition, before July 15, 2017, the Issuers may redeem all or any part of the 6.25% Notes at a redemption price equal to the sum of the principal amount thereof, plus a make whole premium at the redemption date, plus accrued and unpaid interest, if any, to the redemption date. The holders of the notes may require the Issuers to repurchase the 6.25% Notes following certain asset sales or a Change of Control (as defined in the Indenture) at the prices and on the terms specified in the Indenture.
The Indenture contains covenants that will limit the Partnership’s ability to, among other things, incur additional indebtedness and issue preferred securities, make certain dividends and distributions, make certain investments and other restricted payments, restrict distributions by its subsidiaries, create liens, enter into sale-leaseback transactions, sell assets or merge with other entities. Events of default under the Indenture include (i) a default in payment of principal of, or interest or premium, if any, on, the 6.25% Notes, (ii) breach of the Partnership’s covenants under the Indenture, (iii) certain events of bankruptcy and insolvency, (iv) any payment default or acceleration of indebtedness of the Partnership or certain subsidiaries if the total amount of such indebtedness unpaid or accelerated exceeds $15.0 million and (v) failure to pay within 60 days uninsured final judgments exceeding $15.0 million.
Registration Rights Agreement
On June 24, 2014, the Issuers and the subsidiary guarantors entered into a registration rights agreement (the “Registration Rights Agreement”) with the Initial Purchasers in connection with the Issuers’ private placement of the 6.25% Notes. Under the Registration Rights Agreement, the Issuers and the subsidiary guarantors agreed to file and use commercially reasonable efforts to cause to become effective a registration statement relating to an offer to exchange the 6.25% Notes for an issue of SEC-registered notes with terms identical to the 6.25% Notes (except that the exchange notes are not subject to restrictions on transfer or to any increase in annual interest rate for failure to comply with the Registration Rights Agreement) that are registered under the Securities Act so as to permit the exchange offer to be consummated by the 360th day after June 24, 2014. The exchange offer was completed on April 21, 2015, and 100% of the 6.25% Notes were exchanged for SEC-registered notes.
F-33
7.00% Senior Notes
On June 1, 2015, the Issuers entered into a Purchase Agreement (the “7.00% Notes Purchase Agreement”) with the Initial Purchasers (as defined therein) (the “7.00% Notes Initial Purchasers”) pursuant to which the Issuers agreed to sell $300.0 million aggregate principal amount of the Issuers’ 7.00% senior notes due 2023 (the “7.00% Notes”) to the 7.00% Notes Initial Purchasers in a private placement exempt from the registration requirements under the Securities Act. The 7.00% Notes were resold by the 7.00% Notes Initial Purchasers to qualified institutional buyers pursuant to Rule 144A under the Securities Act and to persons outside the United States pursuant to Regulation S under the Securities Act.
The 7.00% Notes Purchase Agreement contained customary representations and warranties of the parties and indemnification and contribution provisions under which the Issuers and the subsidiary guarantors, on one hand, and the 7.00% Notes Initial Purchasers, on the other, agreed to indemnify each other against certain liabilities, including liabilities under the Securities Act. In addition, the 7.00% Notes Purchase Agreement required the execution of a registration rights agreement, described below, relating to the 7.00% Notes. Closing of the offering occurred on June 4, 2015.
Indenture
In connection with the private placement of the 7.00% Notes on June 4, 2015 the Issuers and the subsidiary guarantors and Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, as trustee, entered into an indenture (the “7.00% Notes Indenture”).
The 7.00% Notes will mature on June 15, 2023 with interest accruing at a rate of 7.00% per annum and payable semi-annually in arrears on June 15 and December 15 of each year, commencing December 15, 2015. The 7.00% Notes are guaranteed on a joint and several senior unsecured basis by each of the Issuers and the subsidiary guarantors to the extent set forth in the 7.00% Notes Indenture. Upon a continuing event of default, the trustee or the holders of at least 25% in principal amount of the 7.00% Notes may declare the 7.00% Notes immediately due and payable, except that an event of default resulting from entry into a bankruptcy, insolvency or reorganization with respect to the Partnership, any restricted subsidiary of the Partnership that is a significant subsidiary or any group of its restricted subsidiaries that, taken together, would constitute a significant subsidiary of the Partnership, will automatically cause the 7.00% Notes to become due and payable.
The Issuers will have the option to redeem up to 35% of the 7.00% Notes prior to June 15, 2018 at a redemption price (expressed as a percentage of principal amount) of 107.00% plus accrued and unpaid interest, if any. The Issuers have the option to redeem the 7.00% Notes, in whole or in part, at any time on or after June 15, 2018, at the redemption prices of 105.250% for the twelve-month period beginning June 15, 2018, 103.500% for the twelve-month period beginning June 15, 2019, 101.750% for the twelve-month period beginning June 15, 2020, and 100.0% beginning June 15, 2021 and at any time thereafter, together with any accrued and unpaid interest to the date of redemption. In addition, before June 15, 2018, the Issuers may redeem all or any part of the 7.00% Notes at a redemption price equal to the sum of the principal amount thereof, plus a make whole premium, plus accrued and unpaid interest, if any, to the redemption date. The holders of the 7.00% Notes may require the Issuers to repurchase the 7.00% Notes following certain asset sales or a Change of Control (as defined in the 7.00% Notes Indenture) at the prices and on the terms specified in the 7.00% Notes Indenture.
The 7.00% Notes Indenture contains covenants that will limit the Partnership’s ability to, among other things, incur additional indebtedness and issue preferred securities, make certain dividends and distributions, make certain investments and other restricted payments, restrict distributions by its subsidiaries, create liens, enter into sale-leaseback transactions, sell assets or merge with other entities. Events of default under the 7.00% Notes Indenture include (i) a default in payment of principal of, or interest or premium, if any, on, the 7.00% Notes, (ii) breach of the Partnership’s
F-34
covenants under the 7.00% Notes Indenture, (iii) certain events of bankruptcy and insolvency, (iv) any payment default or acceleration of indebtedness of the Partnership or certain subsidiaries if the total amount of such indebtedness unpaid or accelerated exceeds $50.0 million and (v) failure to pay within 60 days uninsured final judgments exceeding $50.0 million.
Registration Rights Agreement
On June 4, 2015, the Issuers and the subsidiary guarantors entered into a registration rights agreement (the “7.00% Notes Registration Rights Agreement”) with the 7.00% Notes Initial Purchasers in connection with the Issuers’ private placement of the 7.00% Notes. Under the 7.00% Notes Registration Rights Agreement, the Issuers and the subsidiary guarantors agreed to file and use commercially reasonable efforts to cause to become effective a registration statement relating to an offer to exchange the 7.00% Notes for an issue of SEC-registered notes with terms identical to the 7.00% Notes (except that the exchange notes are not subject to restrictions on transfer or to any increase in annual interest rate for failure to comply with the 7.00% Notes Registration Rights Agreement) that are registered under the Securities Act so as to permit the exchange offer to be consummated by the 420th day after June 4, 2015. The exchange offer was completed on October 22, 2015, and 100% of the 7.00% Notes were exchanged for SEC-registered notes.
Financing Obligations
Capitol Acquisition
In connection with the Capitol acquisition on June 1, 2015, (see Note 18) the Partnership assumed a financing obligation of $89.6 million associated with two sale-leaseback transactions by Capitol for 53 leased sites that did not meet the criteria for sale accounting. During the term of these leases, which expire in May 2028 and September 2029, in lieu of recognizing lease expense for the lease rental payments, the Partnership incurs interest expense associated with the financing obligation. Interest expense of approximately $9.6 million and $5.6 million was recorded for the years ended December 31, 2016 and 2015, respectively, and is included in interest expense in the accompanying statements of operations. The financing obligation will amortize through expiration of the lease based upon the lease rental payments which were $9.5 million and $5.4 million for the years ended December 31, 2016 and 2015, respectively. The financing obligation balance outstanding at December 31, 2016 was $89.9 million associated with the Capitol acquisition.
Sale Leaseback Transaction
On June 29, 2016, the Partnership, through its wholly owned subsidiaries, Global Companies, GMG and Alliance, and Alliance’s wholly owned subsidiary, Bursaw Oil LLC, sold to a premier institutional real estate investor (the “Buyer”) real property assets, including the buildings, improvements and appurtenances thereto, at 30 gasoline stations and convenience stores located in Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Rhode Island (the “Sale Leaseback Sites”) for a purchase price of approximately $63.5 million. In connection with the sale, the Partnership entered into a Master Unitary Lease Agreement with the Buyer to lease back the real property assets sold with respect to the Sale Leaseback Sites (such Master Lease Agreement, together with the Sale Leaseback Sites, the “Sale Leaseback Transaction”). The Master Unitary Lease Agreement provides for an initial term of fifteen years that expires in 2031. The Partnership has one successive option to renew the lease for a ten-year period followed by two successive options to renew the lease for five-year periods on the same terms, covenants, conditions and rental as the primary non-revocable lease term. The Partnership does not have any residual interest nor the option to repurchase any of the sites at the end of the lease term. The proceeds from the Sale Leaseback Transaction were used to reduce indebtedness outstanding under the Partnership’s revolving credit facility.
The sale did not meet the criteria for sale accounting as of December 31, 2016 due to prohibited continuing involvement. Specifically, the sale is considered a partial-sale transaction, which is a form of continuing involvement as the Partnership did not transfer to the Buyer the storage tank systems which are considered integral equipment of the Sale Leaseback Sites. Additionally, a portion of the sold sites have material sub-lease arrangements, which is also a form
F-35
of continuing involvement. As the sale of the Sale-Leaseback Sites did not meet the criteria for sale accounting, the Partnership did not recognize a gain or loss on the sale of the Sale Leaseback Sites for the year ended December 31, 2016.
As a result of not meeting the criteria for sale accounting for these sites, the Sale Leaseback Transaction is accounted for as a financing arrangement. As such, the property and equipment sold and leased back by the Partnership has not been derecognized and continues to be depreciated. The Partnership recognized a corresponding financing obligation of $62.5 million equal to the $63.5 million cash proceeds received for the sale of these sites, net of $1.0 million financing fees. During the term of the lease, which expires in June 2031, in lieu of recognizing lease expense for the lease rental payments, the Partnership incurs interest expense associated with the financing obligation. Lease rental payments are recognized as both interest expense and a reduction of the principal balance associated with the financing obligation. Interest expense and lease rental payments were $2.2 million for the year ended December 31, 2016. The financing obligation balance outstanding at December 31, 2016 was $62.5 million associated with the Sale Leaseback Transaction.
Deferred Financing Fees
The Partnership incurs bank fees related to its Credit Agreement and other financing arrangements. These deferred financing fees are capitalized and amortized over the life of the Credit Agreement or other financing arrangements. The Partnership capitalized additional financing fees of $1.0 million for the year ended December 31, 2016, including recording, deed transfer, survey and legal fees associated with the financing obligation recognized as part of the Sale Leaseback Transaction and $2.0 million associated with the February 2016 amendment to the Credit Agreement. The Partnership had unamortized deferred financing fees of $14.1 million and $19.0 million at December 31, 2016 and 2015, respectively.
Unamortized fees related to the Credit Agreement are included in other current assets and other long-term assets and amounted to $6.5 million and $11.2 million at December 31, 2016 and 2015, respectively. Unamortized fees related to the senior notes are presented as a direct deduction from the carrying amount of that debt liability, consistent with debt discounts, and amounted to $6.6 million and $7.8 million at December 31, 2016 and 2015, respectively. Unamortized fees related to the Sale-Leaseback Transaction are presented as a direct deduction from the carrying amount of the financing obligation and amounted to $1.0 million at December 31, 2016.
On February 24, 2016, the Partnership voluntarily elected to reduce its working capital revolving credit facility from $1.0 billion to $900.0 million and its revolving credit facility from $775.0 million to $575.0 million. As a result, the Partnership incurred expenses of approximately $1.8 million associated with the write-off of a portion of its deferred financing fees. These expenses are included in interest expense in the accompanying statement of operations for the year ended December 31, 2016.
Amortization expense of approximately $6.0 million, $5.9 million and $5.6 million for the years ended December 31, 2016, 2015 and 2014, respectively, is included in interest expense in the accompanying consolidated statements of operations.
F-36
Note 7. Derivative Financial Instruments
The following table summarizes the notional values related to the Partnership’s derivative instruments outstanding at December 31, 2016:
|
|
Units (1) |
|
Unit of Measure |
|
|
Exchange-Traded Derivatives |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Long |
|
|
89,329 |
|
Thousands of barrels |
|
Short |
|
|
(95,633) |
|
Thousands of barrels |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OTC Derivatives (Petroleum/Ethanol) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Long |
|
|
5,648 |
|
Thousands of barrels |
|
Short |
|
|
(5,967) |
|
Thousands of barrels |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OTC Derivatives (Natural Gas) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Long |
|
|
10,834 |
|
Thousands of decatherms |
|
Short |
|
|
(10,435) |
|
Thousands of decatherms |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest Rate Swaps |
|
$ |
100.0 |
|
Millions of U.S. dollars |
|
(1) |
Number of open positions and gross notional values do not measure the Partnership’s risk of loss, quantify risk or represent assets or liabilities of the Partnership, but rather indicate the relative size of the derivative instruments and are used in the calculation of the amounts to be exchanged between counterparties upon settlements. |
Fair Value Hedges
The Partnership’s fair value hedges include exchange-traded futures contracts and OTC derivative contracts that are hedges against inventory with specific futures contracts matched to specific barrels. The change in fair value of these futures contracts and the change in fair value of the underlying inventory generally provide an offset to each other in the consolidated statement of operations.
The following table presents the gains and losses from the Partnership’s derivative instruments involved in fair value hedging relationships recognized in the consolidated statements of operations for the years ended December 31 (in thousands):
|
|
Statement of Gain (Loss) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Recognized in Income on |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|
Derivatives |
|
2016 |
|
2015 |
|
2014 |
|
|||
Derivatives in fair value hedging relationship |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exchange-traded futures contracts and OTC derivative contracts for petroleum commodity products |
|
Cost of sales |
|
$ |
(34,461) |
|
$ |
151,344 |
|
$ |
139,473 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hedged items in fair value hedge relationship |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Physical inventory |
|
Cost of sales |
|
$ |
41,860 |
|
$ |
(158,987) |
|
$ |
(141,699) |
|
F-37
Cash Flow Hedges
The Partnership’s cash flow hedges for 2016, 2015 and 2014 included interest rate swaps and an interest rate cap that were hedges of variability in forecasted interest payments due to changes in the interest rate on LIBOR-based borrowings, a summary of which includes the following designations:
· |
In October 2009, the Partnership executed an interest rate swap with a major financial institution. The swap, which became effective on May 16, 2011 and expired on May 16, 2016, was used to hedge the variability in interest payments due to changes in the one month LIBOR swap curve with respect to $100.0 million of one month LIBOR based borrowings on the credit facility at a fixed rate of 3.93%. |
· |
In April 2011, the Partnership executed an interest rate cap with a major financial institution. The rate cap, which became effective on April 13, 2011 and expired on April 13, 2016, was used to hedge the variability in interest payments due to changes in the one month LIBOR rate above 5.5% with respect to $100.0 million of one month LIBOR based borrowings on the credit facility. |
· |
In September 2013, the Partnership executed an interest rate swap with a major financial institution. The swap, which became effective on October 2, 2013 and expires on October 2, 2018, is used to hedge the variability in cash flows in monthly interest payments due to changes in the one month LIBOR swap curve with respect to $100.0 million of one month LIBOR based borrowings on the credit facility at a fixed rate of 1.819%. |
In the aggregate, these hedging instruments have historically been effective in hedging the variability in interest payments due to changes in the one month LIBOR swap curve or rate with respect to $300.0 million of one month LIBOR based borrowings on the credit facility.
In June 2014 and as a result of the issuance of the Partnership’s $375.0 million aggregate principal amount of its 6.25% senior notes due 2022 (see Note 6), the Partnership determined that maintaining an excess of $300.0 million in principal of outstanding floating-rate debt was no longer probable. Therefore, the Partnership elected to de-designate its interest rate cap and discontinued the related hedge accounting for this instrument. The interest rate cap, which expired on April 12, 2016, was not in a hedging relationship for the year ended December 31, 2016. Accordingly, all changes in fair value of this instrument subsequent to the date of de-designation were recorded in the consolidated statement of operations through interest expense.
At December 31, 2016, the Partnership had in place one interest rate swap agreement which is hedging $100.0 million of variable rate debt and continues to be accounted for as a cash flow hedge.
F-38
The following table presents the amount of gains and losses from the Partnership’s derivative instruments designated in cash flow hedging relationships recognized in the consolidated statements of operations and partners’ equity for the years ended December 31 (in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Location of Gain (Loss) |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|
Amount of Gain (Loss) |
|
Reclassified from |
|
Amount of Gain (Loss) |
|
||||||||||||||
|
|
Recognized in |
|
Accumulated Other |
|
Reclassified from Other |
|
||||||||||||||
|
|
Other Comprehensive |
|
Comprehensive Income into |
|
Comprehensive Income into |
|
||||||||||||||
Derivatives Designated in |
|
Income on Derivatives (Effective Portion) |
|
Income (Effective Portion) |
|
Income (Effective Portion) |
|
||||||||||||||
Cash Flow Hedging Relationship |
|
2016 |
|
2015 |
|
2014 |
|
|
|
2016 |
|
2015 |
|
2014 |
|
||||||
Interest rate swaps |
|
$ |
2,173 |
|
$ |
3,353 |
|
$ |
2,766 |
|
Interest expense |
|
$ |
— |
|
$ |
— |
|
$ |
— |
|
Interest rate cap (1) |
|
|
— |
|
|
(17) |
|
|
(8) |
|
Interest expense |
|
|
— |
|
|
— |
|
|
— |
|
Total |
|
$ |
2,173 |
|
$ |
3,336 |
|
$ |
2,758 |
|
|
|
$ |
— |
|
$ |
— |
|
$ |
— |
|
(1) |
The interest rate cap was de-designated as a cash flow hedge in June 2014. Prepaid interest rate caplet amounts recognized in accumulated other comprehensive income up until the date of de-designation have been frozen in partner’s equity as of the de-designation date and were being amortized to income through the tenor of the interest rate cap instrument. The change in the fair value of the interest rate cap following de-designation is reflected in earnings and was immaterial for the years ended December 31, 2016, 2015 and 2014. As of December 31, 2016, the interest rate caplets were fully amortized as the interest rate cap expired in April 2016. |
The amount of gain (loss) recognized in income as ineffectiveness for derivatives designated in cash flow hedging relationships was $0 for the years ended December 31, 2016, 2015 and 2014.
Derivatives Not Accounted for as Hedges
The following table presents the gains and losses from the Partnership’s derivative instruments not involved in a hedging relationship recognized in the consolidated statements of operations for the years ended December 31 (in thousands):
|
|
Statement of Gain (Loss) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Derivatives not designated as |
|
Recognized in |
|
|
|
|||||||
hedging instruments |
|
Income on Derivatives |
|
2016 |
|
2015 |
|
2014 |
|
|||
Commodity contracts |
|
Cost of sales |
|
$ |
3,118 |
|
$ |
5,930 |
|
$ |
18,894 |
|
Forward foreign currency contracts |
|
Cost of sales |
|
|
71 |
|
|
191 |
|
|
25 |
|
Total |
|
|
|
$ |
3,189 |
|
$ |
6,121 |
|
$ |
18,919 |
|
Commodity Contracts and Other Derivative Activity
The Partnership’s commodity contract derivatives and other derivative activity include: (i) exchange-traded derivative contracts that are hedges against inventory and either do not qualify for hedge accounting or are not designated in a hedge accounting relationship, (ii) exchange-traded derivative contracts used to economically hedge physical forward contracts, (iii) financial forward and OTC swap agreements used to economically hedge physical forward contracts and (iv) the derivative instruments under the Partnership’s controlled trading program. The Partnership does not take the normal purchase and sale exemption available under ASC 815 for its physical forward contracts.
F-39
The following table presents the fair value of each classification of the Partnership’s derivative instruments and its location in the consolidated balance sheets at December 31, 2016 and 2015 (in thousands):
|
|
|
|
December 31, 2016 |
|
|||||||
|
|
|
|
Derivatives |
|
Derivatives Not |
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
Designated as |
|
Designated as |
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
Hedging |
|
Hedging |
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
Balance Sheet Location |
|
Instruments |
|
Instruments |
|
Total |
|
|||
Asset Derivatives: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exchange-traded derivative contracts |
|
Broker margin deposits |
|
$ |
— |
|
$ |
60,018 |
|
$ |
60,018 |
|
Forward derivative contracts (1) |
|
Derivative assets |
|
|
— |
|
|
21,382 |
|
|
21,382 |
|
Total asset derivatives |
|
|
|
$ |
— |
|
$ |
81,400 |
|
$ |
81,400 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Liability Derivatives: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exchange-traded derivative contracts |
|
Broker margin deposits |
|
$ |
(33,877) |
|
$ |
(96,831) |
|
$ |
(130,708) |
|
Forward derivative contracts (1) |
|
Derivative liabilities |
|
|
— |
|
|
(27,413) |
|
|
(27,413) |
|
Interest rate swap contracts |
|
Other long-term liabilities |
|
|
— |
|
|
(1,170) |
|
|
(1,170) |
|
Total liability derivatives |
|
|
|
$ |
(33,877) |
|
$ |
(125,414) |
|
$ |
(159,291) |
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, 2015 |
|
|||||||
|
|
|
|
Derivatives |
|
Derivatives Not |
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
Designated as |
|
Designated as |
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
Hedging |
|
Hedging |
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
Balance Sheet Location |
|
Instruments |
|
Instruments |
|
Total |
|
|||
Asset Derivatives: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exchange-traded derivative contracts |
|
Broker margin deposits |
|
$ |
83,645 |
|
$ |
11,722 |
|
$ |
95,367 |
|
Forward derivative contracts (1) |
|
Derivative assets |
|
|
— |
|
|
66,099 |
|
|
66,099 |
|
Forward foreign currency contracts |
|
Other assets |
|
|
— |
|
|
10 |
|
|
10 |
|
Total asset derivatives |
|
|
|
$ |
83,645 |
|
$ |
77,831 |
|
$ |
161,476 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Liability Derivatives: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forward derivative contracts (1) |
|
Derivative liabilities |
|
$ |
— |
|
$ |
(31,911) |
|
$ |
(31,911) |
|
Interest rate swap contracts |
|
Other long-term liabilities |
|
|
— |
|
|
(3,343) |
|
|
(3,343) |
|
Total liability derivatives |
|
|
|
$ |
— |
|
$ |
(35,254) |
|
$ |
(35,254) |
|
(1) |
Forward derivative contracts include the Partnership’s petroleum and ethanol physical and financial forwards and OTC swaps. |
Credit Risk
The Partnership’s derivative financial instruments do not contain credit risk related to other contingent features that could cause accelerated payments when these financial instruments are in net liability positions.
The Partnership is exposed to credit loss in the event of nonperformance by counterparties to the Partnership’s exchange-traded and OTC derivative contracts, but the Partnership has no current reason to expect any material nonperformance by any of these counterparties. Exchange-traded derivative contracts, the primary derivative instrument utilized by the Partnership, are traded on regulated exchanges, greatly reducing potential credit risks. The Partnership utilizes primarily three clearing brokers, all major financial institutions, for all New York Mercantile Exchange (“NYMEX”), Chicago Mercantile Exchange (“CME”) and IntercontinentalExchange (“ICE”) derivative transactions and the right of offset exists with these financial institutions under master netting agreements. Accordingly, the fair value of the Partnership’s exchange-traded derivative instruments is presented on a net basis in the consolidated balance sheets. Exposure on OTC derivatives is limited to the amount of the recorded fair value as of the balance sheet dates.
F-40
Note 8. Fair Value Measurements
Recurring Fair Value Measures
Assets and liabilities are classified in the entirety based on the lowest level of input that is significant to the fair value measurement. The Partnership’s assessment of the significance of a particular input to the fair value measurement requires judgment and may affect the valuation of the fair value assets and liabilities and their placement within the fair value hierarchy levels. The following tables present, by level within the fair value hierarchy, the Partnership’s financial assets and liabilities that were measured at fair value on a recurring basis as of December 31, 2016 and 2015 (in thousands):
|
|
Fair Value at December 31, 2016 |
|
|||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash Collateral |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Level 1 |
|
Level 2 |
|
Level 3 |
|
Netting |
|
Total |
|
|||||
Assets: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forward derivative contracts (1) |
|
$ |
— |
|
$ |
18,972 |
|
$ |
1,683 |
|
$ |
— |
|
$ |
20,655 |
|
Swap agreements and options |
|
|
— |
|
|
727 |
|
|
— |
|
|
— |
|
|
727 |
|
Exchange-traded/cleared derivative instruments (2) |
|
|
(70,690) |
|
|
— |
|
|
— |
|
|
98,344 |
|
|
27,654 |
|
Pension plan |
|
|
16,777 |
|
|
— |
|
|
— |
|
|
— |
|
|
16,777 |
|
Total assets |
|
$ |
(53,913) |
|
$ |
19,699 |
|
$ |
1,683 |
|
$ |
98,344 |
|
$ |
65,813 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Liabilities: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forward derivative contracts (1) |
|
$ |
— |
|
$ |
(25,097) |
|
$ |
(2,054) |
|
$ |
— |
|
$ |
(27,151) |
|
Swap agreements and options |
|
|
— |
|
|
(262) |
|
|
— |
|
|
— |
|
|
(262) |
|
Interest rate swaps |
|
|
— |
|
|
(1,170) |
|
|
— |
|
|
— |
|
|
(1,170) |
|
Total liabilities |
|
$ |
— |
|
$ |
(26,529) |
|
$ |
(2,054) |
|
$ |
— |
|
$ |
(28,583) |
|
|
|
Fair Value at December 31, 2015 |
|
|||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash Collateral |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Level 1 |
|
Level 2 |
|
Level 3 |
|
Netting |
|
Total |
|
|||||
Assets: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forward derivative contracts (1) |
|
$ |
— |
|
$ |
62,382 |
|
$ |
3,717 |
|
$ |
— |
|
$ |
66,099 |
|
Foreign currency derivatives |
|
|
— |
|
|
10 |
|
|
— |
|
|
— |
|
|
10 |
|
Exchange-traded/cleared derivative instruments (2) |
|
|
95,367 |
|
|
— |
|
|
— |
|
|
(64,040) |
|
|
31,327 |
|
Pension plan |
|
|
16,886 |
|
|
— |
|
|
— |
|
|
— |
|
|
16,886 |
|
Total assets |
|
$ |
112,253 |
|
$ |
62,392 |
|
$ |
3,717 |
|
$ |
(64,040) |
|
$ |
114,322 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Liabilities: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forward derivative contracts (1) |
|
$ |
— |
|
$ |
(27,602) |
|
$ |
(3,653) |
|
$ |
— |
|
$ |
(31,255) |
|
Swap agreements and options |
|
|
— |
|
|
(656) |
|
|
— |
|
|
— |
|
|
(656) |
|
Interest rate swaps |
|
|
— |
|
|
(3,343) |
|
|
— |
|
|
— |
|
|
(3,343) |
|
Total liabilities |
|
$ |
— |
|
$ |
(31,601) |
|
$ |
(3,653) |
|
$ |
— |
|
$ |
(35,254) |
|
(1) |
Forward derivative contracts include the Partnership’s petroleum and ethanol physical and financial forwards and OTC swaps |
(2) |
Amount includes the effect of cash balances on deposit with clearing brokers. |
This table excludes cash on hand and assets and liabilities that are measured at historical cost or any basis other than fair value. The carrying amounts of certain of the Partnership’s financial instruments, including cash equivalents, accounts receivable, accounts payable and other accrued liabilities approximate fair value due to their short maturities.
F-41
The carrying value of the credit facility approximates fair value due to the variable rate nature of these financial instruments.
The carrying value of the inventory qualifying for fair value hedge accounting approximates fair value due to adjustments for changes in fair value of the hedged item. The fair values of the derivatives used by the Partnership are disclosed in Note 7.
The determination of the fair values above incorporates factors including not only the credit standing of the counterparties involved, but also the impact of the Partnership’s nonperformance risks on its liabilities.
The values of the Level 1 exchange-traded/cleared derivative instruments and pension plan assets were determined using quoted prices in active markets for identical assets. Specifically, the fair values of the Level 1 exchange-traded/cleared derivative instruments were based on quoted process obtained from the NYMEX, CME and ICE. The fair values of the Level 1 pension plan assets were based on quoted prices for identical assets which primarily consisted of fixed income securities, equity securities and cash and cash equivalents.
The values of the Level 2 derivative contracts were calculated using expected cash flow models and market approaches based on observable market inputs, including published and quoted commodity pricing data, which is verified against other available market data. Specifically, the fair values of the Level 2 derivative commodity contracts were derived from published and quoted NYMEX, CME, ICE, New York Harbor and third-party pricing information for the underlying instruments using market approaches. The fair value of the Level 2 interest rate instruments were derived from the implied forward LIBOR yield curve for the sale period as the future interest rate swap and interest rate cap settlements using expected cash flow models. The fair value of the Level 2 foreign currency derivatives were derived from the implied forward currency curve for the Canadian and U.S. Dollar. The Partnership has not changed its valuation techniques or Level 2 inputs during the years ended December 31, 2016 and 2015.
The fair values of the 6.25% Notes and 7.00% Notes, estimated by observing market trading prices of the 6.25% Notes and 7.00% Notes, respectively, were as follows at December 31 (in thousands):
|
2016 |
|
2015 |
|
|||||||||
|
Face |
|
Fair |
|
Face |
|
Fair |
|
|||||
|
Value |
|
Value |
|
Value |
|
Value |
|
|||||
6.25% Notes |
|
$ |
375,000 |
|
$ |
361,163 |
|
$ |
375,000 |
|
$ |
307,500 |
|
7.00% Notes |
|
$ |
300,000 |
|
$ |
289,500 |
|
$ |
300,000 |
|
$ |
249,000 |
|
Level 3 Information
The values of the Level 3 derivative contracts were calculated using market approaches based on a combination of observable and unobservable market inputs, including published and quoted NYMEX, CME, ICE, New York Harbor and third-party pricing information for a component of the underlying instruments as well as internally developed assumptions where there is little, if any, published or quoted prices or market activity. The unobservable inputs used in the measurement of the Level 3 derivative contracts include estimates for location basis, transportation and throughput costs net of an estimated margin for current market participants. The estimates for these inputs for crude oil were $4.05 to $6.50 per barrel and $4.00 to $13.55 per barrel as of December 31, 2016 and 2015, respectively. The estimates for these inputs for propane were $4.20 to $10.50 per barrel and $2.10 to $9.66 per barrel as of December 31, 2016 and 2015, respectively. Gains and losses recognized in earnings (or changes in net assets) are disclosed in Note 7.
F-42
Sensitivity of the fair value measurement to changes in the significant unobservable inputs is as follows:
Significant |
|
|
|
|
|
Impact on Fair Value |
|
Unobservable Input |
|
Position |
|
Change to Input |
|
Measurement |
|
Location basis |
|
Long |
|
Increase (decrease) |
|
Gain (loss) |
|
Location basis |
|
Short |
|
Increase (decrease) |
|
Loss (gain) |
|
Transportation |
|
Long |
|
Increase (decrease) |
|
Gain (loss) |
|
Transportation |
|
Short |
|
Increase (decrease) |
|
Loss (gain) |
|
Throughput costs |
|
Long |
|
Increase (decrease) |
|
Gain (loss) |
|
Throughput costs |
|
Short |
|
Increase (decrease) |
|
Loss (gain) |
|
The following table presents a reconciliation of changes in fair value of the Partnership’s derivative contracts classified as Level 3 in the fair value hierarchy at December 31 (in thousands):
Fair value at December 31, 2015 |
|
$ |
64 |
|
Derivatives entered into during the period |
|
|
1,435 |
|
Derivatives sold during the period |
|
|
(1,770) |
|
Realized gains (losses) recorded in cost of sales |
|
|
147 |
|
Unrealized gains (losses) recorded in cost of sales |
|
|
(247) |
|
Fair value at December 31, 2016 |
|
$ |
(371) |
|
The Partnership’s policy is to recognize transfers between levels with the fair value hierarchy as of the beginning of the reporting period. The Partnership also excludes any activity for derivative instruments that were not classified as Level 3 at either the beginning or end of the reporting period.
Non-Recurring Fair Value Measures
Certain nonfinancial assets and liabilities are measured at fair value on a non-recurring basis and are subject to fair value adjustments in certain circumstances, such as acquired assets and liabilities, losses related to firm non-cancellable purchase commitments or long-lived assets subject to impairment. For assets and liabilities measured on a non-recurring basis during the year, accounting guidance requires quantitative disclosures about the fair value measurements separately for each major category. See Note 4 for a discussion of the Partnership’s losses on impairment of assets and Note 5 for assets held for sale.
Note 9. Commitments and Contingencies
The Partnership is subject to contingencies, including legal proceedings and claims arising out of the normal course of business that cover a wide range of matters, including, among others, environmental matters and contract and employment claims.
F-43
Leases of Office Space and Computer Equipment
The Partnership has future commitments, principally for office space and computer equipment, under the terms of operating lease arrangements. The following provides total future minimum payments under leases with non‑cancellable terms of one year or more at December 31, 2016 (in thousands):
2017 |
|
$ |
2,663 |
|
2018 |
|
|
2,564 |
|
2019 |
|
|
2,571 |
|
2020 |
|
|
2,290 |
|
2021 |
|
|
2,353 |
|
Thereafter |
|
|
11,487 |
|
Total |
|
$ |
23,928 |
|
Total rent expense under the operating lease arrangements amounted to approximately $3.3 million, $3.7 million and $3.9 million for the years ended December 31, 2016, 2015 and 2014, respectively.
Terminal and Throughput Leases
The Partnership is a party to terminal and throughput lease arrangements with certain counterparties at various unrelated oil terminals. Certain arrangements have minimum usage requirements. The following provides future minimum lease and throughput commitments under these arrangements with non‑cancellable terms of one year or more at December 31, 2016 (in thousands):
2017 |
|
$ |
7,906 |
|
2018 |
|
|
387 |
|
2019 |
|
|
132 |
|
Total |
|
$ |
8,425 |
|
Total rent expense reflected in cost of sales related to these operating leases were approximately $18.5 million, $22.5 million and $31.5 million for the years ended December 31, 2016, 2015 and 2014, respectively.
Leases of Gasoline Stations
The Partnership leases gasoline stations, primarily land and buildings, under operating leases with various expiration dates. The following provides future minimum lease commitments under these arrangements with non‑cancellable terms of one year or more at December 31, 2016 (in thousands):
2017 |
|
$ |
30,365 |
|
2018 |
|
|
28,252 |
|
2019 |
|
|
25,542 |
|
2020 |
|
|
22,837 |
|
2021 |
|
|
20,201 |
|
Thereafter |
|
|
94,001 |
|
Total |
|
$ |
221,198 |
|
Total expenses under these operating lease arrangements amounted to approximately $41.5 million, $36.7 million and $25.0 million for the years ended December 31, 2016, 2015 and 2014, respectively. The increase in
F-44
total expenses in 2015 compared to 2014 was primarily due to the January 2015 acquisition of Warren and the June 2015 acquisition of Capitol.
Sale Leaseback Transaction
The Partnership is party to a master unitary lease agreement to lease back the real property assets sold with respect to 30 gasoline stations and convenience stores (see Note 6). The following provides future minimum lease payments, which are subject to annual adjustments based on a consumer price index based calculation, for the non-cancelable operating lease terms of one year or more at December 31, 2016 (in thousands):
2017 |
|
$ |
4,411 |
|
2018 |
|
|
4,411 |
|
2019 |
|
|
4,411 |
|
2020 |
|
|
4,411 |
|
2021 |
|
|
4,411 |
|
Thereafter |
|
|
41,874 |
|
Total |
|
$ |
63,929 |
|
The following provides future minimum sublease rentals from third-party tenants of certain of the sold sites for each of the next five years ending December 31:
2017 |
|
$ |
1,671 |
|
2018 |
|
|
905 |
|
2019 |
|
|
434 |
|
2020 |
|
|
169 |
|
Total |
|
$ |
3,179 |
|
Total rental income from third-party tenants of the sold sites was $1.2 million for the year ended December 31, 2016.
Dealer Leases of Gasoline Stations
The Partnership leases gasoline stations and certain equipment to gasoline station operators under operating leases with various expiration dates. The aggregate carrying value of the leased gasoline stations and equipment at December 31, 2016 was $355.7 million, net of accumulated depreciation of approximately $61.5 million. The following provides future minimum rental income under non‑cancellable operating leases associated with these properties at December 31, 2016 (in thousands):
2017 |
|
$ |
46,288 |
|
2018 |
|
|
25,765 |
|
2019 |
|
|
10,436 |
|
2020 |
|
|
1,299 |
|
2021 |
|
|
997 |
|
Thereafter |
|
|
909 |
|
Total |
|
$ |
85,694 |
|
Total rental income, which includes reimbursement of utilities and property taxes in certain cases, amounted to approximately $68.8 million, $61.1 million and $42.5 million for the years ended December 31, 2016, 2015 and 2014,
F-45
respectively. The increase in rental income in 2016 and 2015 compared to 2014 was primarily due to the January 2015 acquisition of Warren and the June 2015 acquisition of Capitol.
Leases of Railcars
The Partnership leases railcars through various lease arrangements with various expiration dates. The following provides future minimum lease commitments under these arrangements with non‑cancellable terms of one year or more at December 31, 2016 (in thousands):
2017 |
|
$ |
21,759 |
|
2018 |
|
|
15,677 |
|
2019 |
|
|
7,917 |
|
2020 |
|
|
2,181 |
|
2021 |
|
|
570 |
|
Total |
|
$ |
48,104 |
|
The minimum lease commitments for 2017 are net of $3.6 million, related to a contractual sub-lease arrangement that expires in 2017.
Total expenses under these operating lease arrangements amounted to approximately $56.8 million, $57.7 million and $56.9 million for the years ended December 31, 2016, 2015 and 2014, respectively. On December 31, 2016, we voluntarily terminated a sublease for 1,610 railcars leased from a third party. The termination of the sublease eliminates future lease payments related to these railcars of approximately $30.0 million, $29.0 million and $13.0 million in 2017, 2018 and 2019, respectively.
Leases of Barges
The Partnership leases barges through various time charter lease arrangements with various expiration dates. The following provides future minimum lease commitments under these arrangements with non-cancellable terms of one year or more at December 31, 2016 (in thousands):
2017 |
|
$ |
45,854 |
|
2018 |
|
|
36,440 |
|
2019 |
|
|
12,223 |
|
2020 |
|
|
1,983 |
|
Total |
|
$ |
96,500 |
|
Total expenses under these operating lease arrangements amounted to approximately $67.8 million, $87.3 million and $60.6 million for the years ended December 31, 2016, 2015 and 2014, respectively. In 2016, the Partnership leased fewer barges compared to 2015. In 2015, the Partnership leased more barges under time charters compared to 2014.
F-46
Purchase Commitments
The Partnership has minimum retail gasoline volume purchase requirements with various unrelated parties. These gallonage requirements are purchased at the fair market value of the product at the time of delivery. Should these gallonage requirements not be achieved, the Partnership may be liable to pay penalties to the appropriate supplier. As of December 31, 2016, the Partnership has fulfilled all gallonage commitments. The following provides minimum volume purchase requirements at December 31, 2016 (in thousands of gallons):
2017 |
|
392,888 |
|
2018 |
|
338,669 |
|
2019 |
|
335,577 |
|
2020 |
|
304,320 |
|
2021 |
|
287,736 |
|
Thereafter |
|
540,525 |
|
Total |
|
2,199,715 |
|
Brand Fee Agreement
The Partnership entered into a brand fee agreement with ExxonMobil which entitles the Partnership to operate retail gasoline stations under the Mobil‑branded trade name and related trade logos. The fees, which are based upon an estimate of the volume of gasoline and diesel to be sold at the gasoline stations acquired from ExxonMobil in 2010, are due on a monthly basis. The following provides total future minimum payments under the agreement with non‑cancellable terms of one year or more at December 31, 2016 (in thousands):
2017 |
|
$ |
9,000 |
|
2018 |
|
|
9,000 |
|
2019 |
|
|
9,000 |
|
2020 |
|
|
9,000 |
|
2021 |
|
|
9,000 |
|
Thereafter |
|
|
31,500 |
|
Total |
|
$ |
76,500 |
|
Total expenses reflected in cost of sales related this agreement were approximately $9.0 million for each of the years ended December 31, 2016, 2015 and 2014.
F-47
Port of St. Helens Agreements—Land and Equipment
The Partnership leases mobile equipment under non‑cancellable operating lease arrangements and has a continuing operating lease with the Port of St. Helens. The following provides total future minimum payments under these operating leases with initial terms one year or more at December 31, 2016 (in thousands):
2017 |
|
$ |
230 |
|
2018 |
|
|
230 |
|
2019 |
|
|
230 |
|
2020 |
|
|
230 |
|
2021 |
|
|
230 |
|
Thereafter |
|
|
10,242 |
|
Total |
|
$ |
11,392 |
|
Total rental expense was approximately $223,000, $223,000 and $222,000 for the years ended December 31, 2016, 2015 and 2014, respectively.
Other Commitments
In June 2014, the Partnership entered into a pipeline connection agreement with Meadowlark Midstream Company, LLC (“Meadowlark”) whereby Meadowlark would construct, own, operate and maintain a crude oil pipeline from its Divide County, North Dakota crude oil station to the Partnership’s Basin Transload crude oil storage facility in Columbus, North Dakota. In connection with the agreement, the Partnership is committed to a minimum take-or-pay throughput commitment of approximately $55.0 million over a seven–year period beginning after the commissioning of the pipeline which occurred in December of 2015. At December 31, 2016, the remaining commitment on the take-or-pay commitment was approximately $47.1 million.
In May 2014, the Partnership entered into a pipeline connection agreement with Tesoro High Plains Pipeline Company (“Tesoro High Plains”) whereby Tesoro High Plains would design, engineer, construct and place in service improvements on its pipeline system that will expand its capacity to ship crude oil from points in Dunn and McKenzie Counties, North Dakota to Ramberg Station/Beaver Lodge destination point in Williams County, North Dakota. In connection with this agreement, the Partnership is committed to a minimum take-or-pay throughput commitment of approximately $36.4 million over a seven–year period beginning after the commissioning of the pipeline, which occurred in January of 2015. At December 31, 2016, the remaining commitment on the take-or-pay commitment, including a quarterly take-or-pay of $1.3 million, was approximately $26.0 million.
In April 2014, Basin Transload, of which the Partnership owns a 60% membership interest, entered into a pipeline connection agreement with Tesoro Logistics (“Tesoro”) whereby Tesoro would build, own and operate a four‑mile pipeline lateral from its existing block gate valve in Mercer Country, North Dakota to the Partnership’s Beulah Rail Facility near Beulah, North Dakota. In connection with this agreement, Basin Transload is committed to a minimum take-or-pay throughput commitment of approximately $14.6 million over a five‑year period beginning after the commissioning of the pipeline, which occurred in January 2015. At December 31, 2016, the remaining commitment on the take-or-pay commitment was approximately $13.2 million.
In February 2013, the Partnership assumed natural gas transportation and reservation agreements, which have various expiration dates, with Northwest Natural Gas Company (“NW Natural Gas”) and the Northwest Pipeline system (“NW Pipeline”) whereby NW Natural and NW Pipeline provide the Partnership with the transportation and reservation of firm natural gas delivered to the Partnership’s Oregon facility. At December 31, 2016, the remaining commitment on the transportation and reservation agreements was approximately $12.7 million.
F-48
Environmental Liabilities
Please see Note 12 for a discussion of the Partnership’s environmental liabilities.
Legal Proceedings
Please see Note 21 for a discussion of the Partnership’s legal proceedings.
Note 10. Trustee Taxes and Accrued Expenses and Other Current Liabilities
Accrued expenses and other current liabilities consisted of the following at December 31 (in thousands):
|
|
2016 |
|
2015 |
|
||
Barging transportation, product storage and other ancillary cost accruals |
|
$ |
14,484 |
|
$ |
13,385 |
|
Employee compensation |
|
|
20,167 |
|
|
16,098 |
|
Accrued interest |
|
|
12,352 |
|
|
12,524 |
|
Other |
|
|
23,440 |
|
|
18,321 |
|
Total |
|
$ |
70,443 |
|
$ |
60,328 |
|
Employee compensation consisted of bonuses, vacation and other salary accruals. Ancillary costs consisted of cost accruals related to product expediting and storage.
In addition, the Partnership had trustee taxes payable of $101.2 million at December 31, 2016, which consisted of $55.4 million related to an ethanol credit and $45.8 million in various pass‑through taxes collected on behalf of taxing authorities. Trustee taxes payable at December 31, 2015 of $95.3 million consisted of $55.4 million related to an ethanol credit and $39.9 million in various pass‑through taxes collected on behalf of taxing authorities.
Note 11. Income Taxes
GMG, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Partnership, is a taxable entity for federal and state income tax purposes. Current and deferred income taxes are recognized on the separate earnings of GMG, and the after‑tax earnings of GMG are included in the consolidated earnings of the Partnership.
The following table presents a reconciliation of the difference between the statutory federal income tax rate and the effective income tax rate for the years ended December 31:
|
|
2016 |
|
2015 |
|
2014 |
|
Federal statutory income tax rate |
|
35.0 |
% |
35.0 |
% |
34.0 |
% |
State income tax rate, net of federal tax benefit |
|
(0.7) |
% |
0.7 |
% |
0.7 |
% |
Foreign income tax |
|
— |
% |
0.6 |
% |
0.1 |
% |
Impairment of goodwill |
|
(2.2) |
% |
— |
% |
— |
% |
Partnership income not subject to tax |
|
(32.1) |
% |
(40.8) |
% |
(34.0) |
% |
Effective income tax rate |
|
— |
% |
(4.5) |
% |
0.8 |
% |
F-49
The following table presents the components of the provision for income taxes for the years ended December 31 (in thousands):
|
|
2016 |
|
2015 |
|
2014 |
|
|||
Current: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Federal |
|
$ |
14,499 |
|
$ |
110 |
|
$ |
(91) |
|
State |
|
|
4,345 |
|
|
1,388 |
|
|
877 |
|
Foreign |
|
|
(9) |
|
|
253 |
|
|
188 |
|
Total current |
|
|
18,835 |
|
|
1,751 |
|
|
974 |
|
Deferred: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Federal |
|
|
(13,480) |
|
|
(1,298) |
|
|
948 |
|
State |
|
|
(5,302) |
|
|
(2,326) |
|
|
(959) |
|
Total deferred |
|
|
(18,782) |
|
|
(3,624) |
|
|
(11) |
|
Total |
|
$ |
53 |
|
$ |
(1,873) |
|
$ |
963 |
|
Significant components of long‑term deferred taxes were as follows at December 31 (in thousands):
|
|
2016 |
|
2015 |
|
||
Deferred Income Tax Assets |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accounts receivable allowances |
|
$ |
1,921 |
|
$ |
2,097 |
|
Environmental liability |
|
|
15,478 |
|
|
17,814 |
|
Asset retirement obligation |
|
|
3,313 |
|
|
3,132 |
|
Deferred financing obligation |
|
|
16,912 |
|
|
3,028 |
|
Deferred rent |
|
|
— |
|
|
40 |
|
UNICAP |
|
|
225 |
|
|
747 |
|
Other |
|
|
2,009 |
|
|
1,449 |
|
Federal net operating loss carryforwards |
|
|
5,879 |
|
|
13,930 |
|
State net operating loss carryforwards |
|
|
1,160 |
|
|
2,684 |
|
Federal tax credit carryforward |
|
|
— |
|
|
761 |
|
Total deferred tax assets, gross |
|
|
46,897 |
|
|
45,682 |
|
Valuation allowance |
|
|
(2,707) |
|
|
(975) |
|
Total deferred tax assets, net |
|
$ |
44,190 |
|
$ |
44,707 |
|
Deferred Income Tax Liabilities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Property and equipment |
|
$ |
(84,494) |
|
$ |
(104,798) |
|
Land |
|
|
(14,119) |
|
|
(11,527) |
|
Intangible assets |
|
|
(11,631) |
|
|
(13,218) |
|
Total deferred tax liabilities |
|
$ |
(110,244) |
|
$ |
(129,543) |
|
Net deferred tax assets (liabilities) |
|
$ |
(66,054) |
|
$ |
(84,836) |
|
The Partnership’s net deferred tax liabilities are primarily comprised of the differences in the historical tax basis and fair value book basis of property, equipment and land that were acquired in connection with the 2015 Warren acquisition. The decrease in net deferred tax liabilities during 2016 is primarily due to the Sale Leaseback Transaction (see Note 6) and Mirabito Disposition (see Note 5) that resulted in the recognition of these basis differences into taxable income during 2016.
At December 31, 2016, GMG had federal and state net operating loss carryforwards of approximately $9.6 million and $24.6 million, respectively, which will begin to expire in 2034 and 2019, respectively. Utilization of the net operating loss carryforwards may be subject to annual limitations due to the ownership percentage change limitations provided by the Internal Revenue Code Section 382 and similar state provisions. In the event of a deemed change in
F-50
control under Internal Revenue Code Section 382, an annual limitation imposed on the utilization of net operating losses may result in the expiration of all or a portion of the net operating loss carryforwards.
At December 31, 2016, the Partnership had $52.0 million of net deferred tax liabilities (consisting of the $66.1 million total net deferred tax liability less the $14.1 million deferred tax liability relating to land discussed below) relating to property and equipment, net operating loss carryforwards, tax credit carryforwards and other temporary differences, certain of which are available to reduce income taxes in future years. The Partnership recognizes deferred tax assets to the extent that the recoverability of these assets satisfy the “more likely than not” criteria in accordance with the FASB’s guidance regarding income taxes. A valuation allowance must be established when it is “more likely than not” that all or a portion of deferred tax assets will not be realized. A review of all available positive and negative evidence needs to be considered, including a company’s performance, the market environment in which the company operates, length of carryback and carryforward periods and projections of future operating results. The Partnership concluded, based on an evaluation of future operating results and reversal of existing taxable temporary differences, that a portion of these assets will not be realized in a future period. The valuation allowance increased by approximately $1.7 million as of December 31, 2016, primarily due to foreign net operating loss carryforwards that are unlikely to be utilized.
At December 31, 2016, the Partnership also had a $14.1 million, deferred tax liability relating to land. Land is an asset with an indefinite useful life and would not ordinarily serve as a source of income for the realization of deferred tax assets. This deferred tax liability will not reverse until some indefinite future period when the asset is either sold or written down due to impairment. Such taxable temporary differences generally cannot be used as a source of taxable income to support the realization of deferred tax assets relating to reversing deductible temporary differences, including loss carryforwards with expiration periods.
The following presents a reconciliation of the differences between income before income tax expense and income subject to income tax expense for the years ended December 31 (in thousands):
|
|
2016 |
|
2015 |
|
2014 |
|
|||
(Loss) income before income tax expense |
|
$ |
(238,570) |
|
$ |
41,391 |
|
$ |
117,943 |
|
Non—taxable loss (income) |
|
|
224,609 |
|
|
(48,861) |
|
|
(117,465) |
|
(Loss) income subject to income tax expense |
|
$ |
(13,961) |
|
$ |
(7,470) |
|
$ |
478 |
|
The Partnership made approximately $17.0 million, $2.8 million and $0.7 million in income tax payments during 2016, 2015 and 2014, respectively.
GMG files income tax returns in the United States and various state jurisdictions. The Partnership is subject to income tax examinations by tax authorities for all years dated back to 2013.
The following presents the changes in gross unrealized tax benefits for the years ended December 31 (in thousands):
|
|
2016 |
|
2015 |
|
2014 |
|
|||
Balance at beginning of year |
|
$ |
148 |
|
$ |
— |
|
$ |
— |
|
Increases for tax positions taken in prior years |
|
|
1,572 |
|
|
148 |
|
|
— |
|
Decreases for tax positions taken during the current year |
|
|
(148) |
|
|
— |
|
|
— |
|
Settlements of tax positons taken in prior years |
|
|
(139) |
|
|
— |
|
|
— |
|
Income subject to income tax expense |
|
$ |
1,433 |
|
$ |
148 |
|
$ |
— |
|
The Partnership had gross-tax effected unrecognized tax benefits of $1.4 million, $0.1 million and $0 for 2016,
F-51
2015 and 2014, respectively, of which $1.4 million, $0 and $0, respectively, would favorably impact the effective tax rate if recognized.
The FASB’s accounting guidance for income taxes clarifies the accounting for uncertainty in income taxes recognized in an enterprise’s financial statements by prescribing a minimum recognition threshold and measurement of a tax position taken or expected to be taken in a tax return. The Partnership performed an evaluation of all material tax positions for the tax years that remain subject to examination by major tax jurisdictions as of December 31, 2016 (tax years ended December 31, 2016, 2015 and 2014). Tax positions that do not meet the more-likely-than-not recognition threshold at the financial statement date may not be recognized or continue to be recognized under the accounting guidance for income taxes. The Partnership classifies interest and penalties related to income taxes as components of its provision for income taxes, and the amount of interest and penalties recorded in the accompanying balance sheet and statement of operations was $0.2 million as of and for the year ended December 31, 2016. Interest and penalties related to income taxes were immaterial as of December 31, 2015 and for the years ended December 31, 2015 and 2014. The Partnership anticipates the amount of unrecognized tax benefits to change up to $0.4 million over the next twelve months.
Note 12. Environmental Liabilities and Renewable Identification Numbers (RINs)
Environmental Liabilities
The Partnership owns or leases properties where refined petroleum products, renewable fuels and crude oil are being or may have been handled. These properties and the refined petroleum products, renewable fuels and crude oil handled thereon may be subject to federal and state environmental laws and regulations. Under such laws and regulations, the Partnership could be required to remove or remediate containerized hazardous liquids or associated generated wastes (including wastes disposed of or abandoned by prior owners or operators), to clean up contaminated property arising from the release of liquids, pollutants or wastes into the environment, including contaminated groundwater, or to implement best management practices to prevent future contamination.
The Partnership maintains insurance of various types with varying levels of coverage that it considers adequate under the circumstances to cover its operations and properties. The insurance policies are subject to deductibles that the Partnership considers reasonable and not excessive. In addition, the Partnership has entered into indemnification agreements with various sellers in conjunction with several of its acquisitions. Allocation of a known environmental liability is an issue negotiated in connection with each of the Partnership’s acquisition transactions. In each case, the Partnership makes an assessment of potential environmental liability exposure based on available information. Based on that assessment and relevant economic and risk factors, the Partnership determines whether to, and the extent to which it will, assume liability for existing environmental conditions.
In connection with the June 2015 acquisition of retail gasoline stations from Capitol (see Note 18), the Partnership assumed certain environmental liabilities, including future remediation activities required by applicable federal, state or local law or regulation at certain of the retail gasoline stations owned by Capitol. Certain environmental remediation obligations at most of the acquired retail gasoline station assets from Capitol are being funded by third parties who assumed certain liabilities in connection with Capitol’s acquisition of these assets from ExxonMobil Corporation (“ExxonMobil”) in 2009 and 2010 and, therefore, cost estimates for such obligations at these stations are not included in this estimate of liability to the Partnership. As a result, the Partnership initially recorded, on an undiscounted basis, a total environmental liability of approximately $0.3 million for those locations not covered by third parties.
In connection with the January 2015 acquisition of the Revere Terminal (see Note 18), the Partnership assumed certain environmental liabilities, including certain ongoing environmental remediation efforts. As a result, the Partnership initially recorded, on an undiscounted basis, a total environmental liability of approximately $3.1 million.
F-52
In connection with the January 2015 acquisition of Warren (see Note 18), the Partnership assumed certain environmental liabilities, including certain ongoing environmental remediation efforts at certain of the retail gasoline stations owned or leased by Warren and future remediation activities required by applicable federal, state or local law or regulation. As a result, the Partnership initially recorded, on an undiscounted basis, a total environmental liability of approximately $36.5 million.
In connection with the December 2012 acquisition of six New England retail gasoline stations from Mutual Oil Company, the Partnership assumed certain environmental liabilities, including certain ongoing remediation efforts. As a result, the Partnership initially recorded, on an undiscounted basis, a total environmental liability of approximately $0.6 million.
In connection with the March 2012 acquisition of Alliance, the Partnership assumed Alliance’s environmental liabilities, including ongoing environmental remediation at certain of the retail gasoline stations owned by Alliance and future remediation activities required by applicable federal, state or local law or regulation. Remedial action plans are in place, as may be applicable with the state agencies regulating such ongoing remediation. Based on reports from environmental consultants, the Partnership’s estimated cost of the ongoing environmental remediation for which Alliance was responsible and future remediation activities required by applicable federal, state or local law or regulation is estimated to be approximately $16.1 million to be expended over an extended period of time. Certain environmental remediation obligations at the retail stations acquired by Alliance from ExxonMobil in 2011 are being funded by a third party who assumed the liability in connection with the Alliance/ExxonMobil transaction in 2011 and, therefore, cost estimates for such obligations at these stations are not included in this estimate. As a result, the Partnership initially recorded, on an undiscounted basis, total environmental liabilities of approximately $16.1 million.
In connection with the September 2010 acquisition of retail gasoline stations from ExxonMobil, the Partnership assumed certain environmental liabilities, including ongoing environmental remediation at and monitoring activities at certain of the acquired sites and future remediation activities required by applicable federal, state or local law or regulation. Remedial action plans are in place with the applicable state regulatory agencies for the majority of these locations, including plans for soil and groundwater treatment systems at certain sites. Based on consultations with environmental consultants, the Partnership’s estimated cost of the remediation is expected to be approximately $30.0 million to be expended over an extended period of time. As a result, the Partnership initially recorded, on an undiscounted basis, total environmental liabilities of approximately $30.0 million.
In connection with the June 2010 acquisition of three refined petroleum products terminals in Newburgh, New York, the Partnership assumed certain environmental liabilities, including certain ongoing remediation efforts. As a result, the Partnership initially recorded, on an undiscounted basis, a total environmental liability of approximately $1.5 million.
In addition to the above-mentioned environmental liabilities related to the Partnership’s retail gasoline stations, the Partnership retains some of the environmental obligations associated with certain gasoline stations that the Partnership has sold.
F-53
The following table presents a summary roll forward of the Partnership’s environmental liabilities at December 31, 2016 (in thousands):
|
|
Balance at |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other |
|
Balance at |
|
|||
|
|
December 31, |
|
Payments in |
|
Dispositions |
|
Adjustments |
|
December 31, |
|
|||||
Environmental Liability Related to: |
|
2015 |
|
2016 |
|
2016 |
|
2016 |
|
2016 |
|
|||||
Retail gasoline stations |
|
$ |
68,451 |
|
$ |
(3,938) |
|
$ |
(5,589) |
|
$ |
(468) |
|
$ |
58,456 |
|
Terminals |
|
|
4,782 |
|
|
(173) |
|
|
— |
|
|
— |
|
|
4,609 |
|
Total environmental liabilities |
|
$ |
73,233 |
|
$ |
(4,111) |
|
$ |
(5,589) |
|
$ |
(468) |
|
$ |
63,065 |
|
Current portion |
|
$ |
5,350 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
5,341 |
|
Long-term portion |
|
|
67,883 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
57,724 |
|
Total environmental liabilities |
|
$ |
73,233 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
63,065 |
|
The Partnership’s estimates used in these environmental liabilities are based on all known facts at the time and its assessment of the ultimate remedial action outcomes. Among the many uncertainties that impact the Partnership’s estimates are the necessary regulatory approvals for, and potential modification of, its remediation plans, the amount of data available upon initial assessment of the impact of soil or water contamination, changes in costs associated with environmental remediation services and equipment, relief of obligations through divestitures of sites and the possibility of existing legal claims giving rise to additional claims. Dispositions generally represent relief of legal obligations through the sale of the related property with no retained obligation. Other adjustments generally represent changes in estimates for existing obligations or obligations associated with new sites. Therefore, although the Partnership believes that these environmental liabilities are adequate, no assurances can be made that any costs incurred in excess of these environmental liabilities or outside of indemnifications or not otherwise covered by insurance would not have a material adverse effect on the Partnership’s financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.
Renewable Identification Numbers (RINs)
A RIN is a serial number assigned to a batch of renewable fuel for the purpose of tracking its production, use, and trading as required by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (“EPA”) Renewable Fuel Standard that originated with the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and modified by the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. To evidence that the required volume of renewable fuel is blended with gasoline and diesel motor vehicle fuels, obligated parties must retire sufficient RINs to cover their Renewable Volume Obligation (“RVO”). The Partnership’s EPA obligations relative to renewable fuel reporting are largely limited to the foreign gasoline and diesel that the Partnership may choose to import and a small amount of blending operations at certain facilities. As a wholesaler of transportation fuels through its terminals, the Partnership separates RINs from renewable fuel through blending with gasoline and can use those separated RINs to settle its RVO. While the annual compliance period for the RVO is a calendar year and the settlement of the RVO typically occurs by March 31 of the following year, the settlement of the RVO can occur, under certain EPA deferral actions, more than one year after the close of the compliance period.
The Partnership’s Wholesale segment’s operating results may be sensitive to the timing associated with its RIN position relative to its RVO at a point in time, and the Partnership may recognize a mark‑to‑market liability for a shortfall in RINs at the end of each reporting period. To the extent that the Partnership does not have a sufficient number of RINs to satisfy the RVO as of the balance sheet date, the Partnership charges cost of sales for such deficiency based on the market price of the RINs as of the balance sheet date and records a liability representing the Partnership’s obligation to purchase RINs. The Partnership’s RVO deficiency was $0.2 million and $0.4 million at December 31, 2016 and 2015, respectively.
The Partnership may enter into RIN forward purchase and sales commitments. Total losses at December 31, 2016 and 2015 from firm non-cancellable commitments were immaterial.
F-54
Note 13. Employee Benefit Plans
The Partnership sponsors and maintains the Global Partners LP 401(k) Savings and Profit Sharing Plan (the “Global 401(k) Plan”), a qualified defined contribution plan. Eligible employees may elect to contribute up to 100% of their eligible compensation to the Global 401(k) Plan for each payroll period, subject to annual dollar limitations which are periodically adjusted by the IRS. The General Partner makes safe harbor matching contributions to the Global Partners 401(k) Plan equal to 100% of the participant’s elective contributions that do not exceed 3% of the participant’s eligible compensation and 50% of the participant’s elective contributions that exceed 3% but do not exceed 5% of the participant’s eligible compensation. The General Partner also makes discretionary non‑matching contributions for certain groups of employees in amounts up to 2% of eligible compensation. Profit‑sharing contributions may also be made at the sole discretion of the General Partner’s board of directors.
GMG sponsors and maintains the Global Montello Group Corp. 401(k) Savings and Profit Sharing Plan (the “GMG 401(k) Plan”), a qualified defined contribution plan. Eligible employees may elect to contribute up to 100% of their eligible compensation to the GMG 401(k) Savings and Profit Sharing Plan for each payroll period, subject to annual dollar limitations which are periodically adjusted by the IRS. GMG makes safe harbor matching contributions to the 401(k) Savings and Profit Sharing Plan equal to 100% of the participant’s elective contributions that do not exceed 3% of the participant’s eligible compensation and 50% of the participant’s elective contributions that exceed 3% but do not exceed 5% of the participant’s eligible compensation. Profit‑sharing contributions may also be made at the sole discretion of GMG’s board of directors.
The Global 401(k) Plan and the GMG 401(k) Plan collectively had expenses of approximately $2.7 million, $2.4 million and $2.0 million for the years ended December 31, 2016, 2015 and 2014, respectively, which are included in selling, general and administrative expenses in the accompanying statements of operations.
In addition, the General Partner sponsors and maintains the Global Partners LP Pension Plan (the “Global Pension Plan),” a qualified defined benefit pension plan. Effective December 31, 2009, the Global Pension Plan was amended to freeze participation and benefit accruals. In order to reduce the adverse effects of the pension freeze on employees with substantial service who may not have time to replace future pension accruals with retirement savings before reaching the normal retirement age of 65, employees meeting certain age and service requirements received increased benefits, including under the Global 401(k) Plan, effective December 31, 2009.
GMG sponsors and maintains the Global Montello Group Corp. Pension Plan (the “GMG Pension Plan”), a qualified defined benefit pension plan. On March 15, 2012, the GMG Pension Plan was amended to freeze participation and benefit accruals. In order to reduce the adverse effects of the pension freeze on employees with substantial service who may not have time to replace future pension accruals with retirement savings before reaching the normal retirement age of 65, employees meeting certain age and service requirements received increased benefits, including under the Global 401(k) Plan and the GMG 401(k) Plan, effective in 2012.
The following table presents each plan’s funded status and the total amounts recognized in the consolidated balance sheets at December 31 (in thousands):
|
|
December 31, 2016 |
|
|||||||
|
|
Global |
|
GMG |
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
Pension Plan |
|
Pension Plan |
|
Total |
|
|||
Projected benefit obligation |
|
$ |
16,145 |
|
$ |
4,486 |
|
$ |
20,631 |
|
Fair value of plan assets |
|
|
13,697 |
|
|
3,080 |
|
|
16,777 |
|
Net unfunded pension liability |
|
$ |
2,448 |
|
$ |
1,406 |
|
$ |
3,854 |
|
F-55
|
|
December 31, 2015 |
|
|||||||
|
|
Global |
|
GMG |
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Pension Plan |
|
Pension Plan |
|
Total |
|
|||
Projected benefit obligation |
|
$ |
16,338 |
|
$ |
4,593 |
|
$ |
20,931 |
|
Fair value of plan assets |
|
|
13,481 |
|
|
3,405 |
|
|
16,886 |
|
Net unfunded pension liability |
|
$ |
2,857 |
|
$ |
1,188 |
|
$ |
4,045 |
|
Total actual return on plan assets was $1.5 million and ($0.2 million) in 2016 and 2015, respectively.
The following presents the components of the net periodic change in benefit obligation for the Pension Plans for the years ended December 31 (in thousands):
|
|
2016 |
|
2015 |
|
2014 |
|
|||
Benefit obligation at beginning of year |
|
$ |
20,931 |
|
$ |
23,615 |
|
$ |
19,245 |
|
Interest cost |
|
|
780 |
|
|
801 |
|
|
804 |
|
Actuarial loss (gain) |
|
|
778 |
|
|
(1,925) |
|
|
5,151 |
|
Benefits paid |
|
|
(1,858) |
|
|
(1,560) |
|
|
(1,585) |
|
Benefit obligation at end of year |
|
$ |
20,631 |
|
$ |
20,931 |
|
$ |
23,615 |
|
The following presents the weighted-average actuarial assumptions used in determining each plan’s annual pension expense for the years ended December 31:
|
|
Global Pension Plan |
|
GMG Pension Plan |
|
||||||||
|
|
2016 |
|
2015 |
|
2014 |
|
2016 |
|
2015 |
|
2014 |
|
Discount rate |
|
3.8% |
|
4.0% |
|
3.6% |
|
4.1% |
|
4.3% |
|
3.6% |
|
Expected return on plan assets |
|
7.0% |
|
7.0% |
|
7.5% |
|
7.0% |
|
7.0% |
|
7.0% |
|
The discount rates were selected by performing a cash flow/bond matching analysis based on the Citigroup Above‑Median Pension Discount Curve. The expected long-term rate of return on plan assets is determined by using each plan’s respective target allocation and historical returns for each asset class.
The fundamental investment objective of each of the Pension Plans is to provide a rate of return sufficient to fund the retirement benefits under the applicable Pension Plan at a reasonable cost to the applicable plan sponsor. At a minimum, the rate of return should equal or exceed the discount rate assumed by the Pension Plan’s actuaries in projecting the funding cost of the Pension Plan under the applicable Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”) standards. To do so, the General Partner’s Pension Committee (the “Committee”) may appoint one or more investment managers to invest all or portions of the assets of the Pension Plans in accordance with specific investment guidelines, objectives, standards and benchmarks.
The following presents the Pension Plans’ benefits as of December 31, 2016 expected to be paid in each of the next five fiscal years and in the aggregate for the next five fiscal years thereafter (in thousands):
2017 |
|
$ |
2,469 |
|
2018 |
|
|
841 |
|
2019 |
|
|
808 |
|
2020 |
|
|
1,273 |
|
2021 |
|
|
856 |
|
2022—2026 |
|
|
5,343 |
|
Total |
|
$ |
11,590 |
|
F-56
The cost of annual contributions to the Pension Plans is not significant to the General Partner, the Partnership or its subsidiaries. Total contributions made by the General Partner, the Partnership and its subsidiaries to the Pension Plans were $0.3 million, $0.6 million and $0.2 million in 2016, 2015 and 2014, respectively.
Note 14. Related‑Party Transactions
The Partnership was a party to an exclusive Second Amended and Restated Terminal Storage Rental and Throughput Agreement, as amended (the “Terminal Storage Rental and Throughput Agreement”), with GPC, an affiliate of the Partnership that is 100% owned by members of the Slifka family, with respect to the Revere Terminal in Revere, Massachusetts. On January 14, 2015, the Partnership acquired the Revere Terminal from GPC and related entities, and the Terminal Storage Rental and Throughput Agreement was terminated (see Note 18). Prior to the acquisition, the agreement was accounted for as an operating lease. The expenses under this agreement totaled $0.8 million and $9.2 million for the years ended December 31, 2015 and 2014, respectively. These expenses include annual consumer price index adjustments of approximately $0 and $1.9 million for the years ended December 31, 2015 and 2014, respectively.
The Partnership was a party to an Amended and Restated Services Agreement with GPC, whereby GPC provided certain terminal operating management services to the Partnership and used certain administrative, accounting and information processing services of the Partnership. The expenses from these services totaled approximately $0, $8,000 and $96,000 for the years ended December 31, 2016, 2015 and 2014, respectively.
On March 11, 2015, the Partnership entered into the following amendments and restatements to its shared services agreements: (i) Global Companies entered into an Amended and Restated Services Agreement with AE Holdings Corp. (the “AE Holdings Amended and Restated Services Agreement”), and (ii) certain of the Partnership’s subsidiaries entered into a Second Amended and Restated Services Agreement with GPC (the “GPC Second Amended and Restated Services Agreement”).
Under the AE Holdings Amended and Restated Services Agreement, the Partnership provided AE Holdings with certain tax, accounting, treasury and legal support services for which AE Holdings paid the Partnership an aggregate of $15,000 per year in equal monthly installments until it was voluntarily dissolved effective on July 10, 2015. Under the GPC Second Amended and Restated Services Agreement, GPC no longer provides the Partnership with terminal, environmental and operational support services, but the Partnership continues to provide GPC with certain tax, accounting, treasury, legal, information technology, human resources and financial operations support services for which GPC pays the Partnership a monthly services fee at an agreed amount subject to the approval by the Conflicts Committee of the board of directors of the General Partner. The GPC Second Amended and Restated Services Agreement is for an indefinite term and any party may terminate some or all of the services upon ninety (90) days’ advanced written notice. As of December 31, 2016, no such notice of termination was given by GPC.
The General Partner employs substantially all of the Partnership’s employees, except for most of its gasoline station and convenience store employees, who are employed by GMG. The Partnership reimburses the General Partner for expenses incurred in connection with these employees. These expenses, including payroll, payroll taxes and bonus accruals, were $101.6 million, $109.0 million and $95.5 million for the years ended December 31, 2016, 2015 and 2014, respectively. The Partnership also reimburses the General Partner for its contributions under the General Partner’s 401(k) Savings and Profit Sharing Plan (see Note 13) and the General Partner’s qualified and non‑qualified pension plans.
F-57
The table below presents trade receivables with GPC and the Partnership and receivables from the General Partner at December 31 (in thousands):
|
|
2016 |
|
2015 |
|
||
Receivables from GPC |
|
$ |
6 |
|
$ |
— |
|
Receivables from the General Partner (1) |
|
|
3,137 |
|
|
2,578 |
|
Total |
|
$ |
3,143 |
|
$ |
2,578 |
|
(1) |
Receivables from the General Partner reflect the Partnership’s prepayment of payroll taxes and payroll accruals to the General Partner. |
Note 15. Long-Term Incentive Plan
The Partnership has a Long Term Incentive Plan, as amended (the “LTIP”), whereby a total of 4,300,000 common units were authorized for delivery with respect to awards under the LTIP. The LTIP provides for awards to employees, consultants and directors of the General Partner and employees and consultants of affiliates of the Partnership who perform services for the Partnership. The LTIP allows for the award of options, unit appreciation rights, restricted units, phantom units, distribution equivalent rights, unit awards and substitute awards. Awards granted pursuant to the LTIP vest pursuant to the terms of the grant agreements.
Awards granted under the LTIP are authorized by the Compensation Committee of the board of directors of the General Partner (the “Committee”) from time to time. Additionally and in accordance with the LTIP, the Committee established a “CEO Authorized LTIP” program pursuant to which the Chief Executive Officer (“CEO”) may grant awards of phantom units without distribution equivalent rights to employees of the General Partner and the Partnership’s subsidiaries, other than named executive officers. The CEO Authorized LTIP program was approved for three consecutive calendar years commencing January 1, 2014, subject to modification or earlier termination by the Committee. During each calendar year of the program, the CEO is authorized to grant awards of up to an aggregate amount of $2.0 million of phantom units payable in common units upon vesting, with unused dollar amounts carrying over in the next year, and no individual grant may be made for an award valued at the time of grant of more than $550,000, unless otherwise previously approved by the Committee. Awards granted pursuant to the CEO Authorized LTIP generally would be for a term of six years and vest in equal tranches at the end of each of the fourth, fifth and sixth anniversary dates of the particular award.
Accounting guidance for share‑based compensation requires that a non‑vested equity share unit awarded to an employee is to be measured at its fair value as if it were vested and issued on the grant date. The fair value of the above awards at their respective grant dates approximated the fair value of the Partnership’s common unit at that date.
Compensation cost for an award of share-based employee compensation classified as equity, as is the case of the Partnership’s awards, is recognized over the requisite service period. The requisite service period for the Partnership is from the grant date through the vesting dates described in the grant agreement. The Partnership recognizes as compensation expense for the awards granted to employees and non-employee directors the value of the portion of the award that is ultimately expected to vest over the requisite service period on a straight-line basis. In accordance with the guidance issued for share-based compensation, the Partnership estimated forfeitures at the time of grant. Such estimates, which were based on the Partnership’s service history, will be revised, if necessary, in subsequent periods if actual forfeitures differ from estimates.
The Partnership recorded total compensation expense related to the above awards of $4.2 million, $4.3 million and $3.5 million for the years ended December 31, 2016, 2015 and 2014, respectively, which is included in selling, general and administrative expenses in the accompanying consolidated statements of operations. The total compensation
F-58
cost related to the non-vested awards not yet recognized at December 31, 2016 was approximately $9.9 million and is expected to be recognized ratably over the remaining requisite service periods.
Status of Non‑Vested Units
The following table presents a summary of the status of the non‑vested phantom units:
|
|
|
|
Weighted |
|
|
|
Number of |
|
Average |
|
|
|
Non-vested |
|
Grant Date |
|
|
|
Units |
|
Fair Value ($) |
|
Outstanding non—vested units at December 31, 2014 |
|
532,748 |
|
39.29 |
|
Granted |
|
76,893 |
|
35.72 |
|
Vested |
|
(13,921) |
|
38.39 |
|
Forfeited |
|
— |
|
— |
|
Outstanding non—vested units at December 31, 2015 |
|
595,720 |
|
38.85 |
|
Granted |
|
12,659 |
|
15.80 |
|
Vested |
|
(21,872) |
|
37.34 |
|
Forfeited |
|
(14,953) |
|
32.66 |
|
Outstanding non—vested units at December 31, 2016 |
|
571,554 |
|
38.56 |
|
Repurchase Program
In May 2009, the board of directors of the General Partner authorized the repurchase of the Partnership’s common units (the “Repurchase Program”) for the purpose of meeting the General Partner’s anticipated obligations to deliver common units under the LTIP and meeting the General Partner’s obligations under existing employment agreements and other employment related obligations of the General Partner (collectively, the “General Partner’s Obligations”). The General Partner is authorized to acquire up to 1,242,427 of its common units in the aggregate over an extended period of time, consistent with the General Partner’s Obligations. Common units may be repurchased from time to time in open market transactions, including block purchases, or in privately negotiated transactions. Such authorized unit repurchases may be modified, suspended or terminated at any time and are subject to price and economic and market conditions, applicable legal requirements and available liquidity. Since the Repurchase Program was implemented, the General Partner repurchased 838,505 common units pursuant to the Repurchase Program for approximately $24.8 million, none of which were repurchased in 2016.
Note 16. Partners’ Equity, Allocations and Cash Distributions
Partners’ Equity
Partners’ equity at December 31, 2016 consisted of 33,995,563 common units issued, including 7,433,829 common units held by affiliates of the General Partner, including directors and executive officers, collectively representing a 99.33% limited partner interest in the Partnership, and 230,303 general partner units representing a 0.67% general partner interest in the Partnership.
F-59
The following table presents the changes in the Partnership’s outstanding units:
|
|
Limited |
|
General |
|
Total |
Balance at December 31, 2013 |
|
27,430,563 |
|
230,303 |
|
27,660,866 |
Public offering of common units (see Note 17) |
|
3,565,000 |
|
— |
|
3,565,000 |
Balance at December 31, 2014 |
|
30,995,563 |
|
230,303 |
|
31,225,866 |
Public offering of common units (see Note 17) |
|
3,000,000 |
|
— |
|
3,000,000 |
Balance at December 31, 2015 and 2016 |
|
33,995,563 |
|
230,303 |
|
34,225,866 |
Common Units
The common units have limited voting rights as set forth in the Partnership’s partnership agreement.
General Partner Units
The Partnership’s general partner interest is represented by general partner units. The General Partner is entitled to a percentage (equal to the general partner interest) of all cash distributions of available cash on all common units. The Partnership’s partnership agreement sets forth the calculation to be used to determine the amount and priority of cash distributions that the common unitholders, holders of the incentive distribution rights and the General Partner will receive.
The Partnership’s general partner interest has the management rights as set forth in the Partnership’s partnership agreement.
Incentive Distribution Rights
Incentive distribution rights represent the right to receive an increasing percentage of quarterly distributions of available cash from distributable cash flow after the target distribution levels have been achieved, as defined in the Partnership’s partnership agreement. The General Partner holds all of the incentive distribution rights, but may transfer these rights separately from its general partner interest, subject to restrictions in the Partnership’s partnership agreement.
Allocations of Net Income
Net income is allocated between the General Partner and the common unitholders in accordance with the provisions of the Partnership’s partnership agreement. Net income is generally allocated first to the General Partner and the common unitholders in an amount equal to the net losses allocated to the General Partner and the common unitholders in the current and prior tax years under the Partnership’s partnership agreement. The remaining net income is allocated to the General Partner and the common unitholders in accordance with their respective percentage interests of the general partner units and common units.
Cash Distributions
The Partnership intends to make cash distributions to unitholders on a quarterly basis, although there is no assurance as to the future cash distributions since they are dependent upon future earnings, capital requirements, financial condition and other factors. The Credit Agreement prohibits the Partnership from making cash distributions if any potential default or Event of Default, as defined in the Credit Agreement, occurs or would result from the cash
F-60
distribution. The indentures governing the Partnership’s outstanding senior notes also limit the Partnership’s ability to make distributions to its unitholders in certain circumstances.
Within 45 days after the end of each quarter, the Partnership will distribute all of its Available Cash (as defined in its partnership agreement) to unitholders of record on the applicable record date. The amount of Available Cash is all cash on hand on the date of determination of Available Cash for the quarter; less the amount of cash reserves established by the General Partner to provide for the proper conduct of the Partnership’s business, to comply with applicable law, any of the Partnership’s debt instruments or other agreements or to provide funds for distributions to unitholders and the General Partner for any one or more of the next four quarters.
The Partnership will make distributions of Available Cash from distributable cash flow for any quarter in the following manner: 99.33% to the common unitholders, pro rata, and 0.67% to the General Partner, until the Partnership distributes for each outstanding common unit an amount equal to the minimum quarterly distribution for that quarter; and thereafter, cash in excess of the minimum quarterly distribution is distributed to the unitholders and the General Partner based on the percentages as provided below.
As holder of the IDRs, the General Partner is entitled to incentive distributions if the amount that the Partnership distributes with respect to any quarter exceeds specified target levels shown below:
|
|
|
|
Marginal Percentage |
|
||
|
|
Total Quarterly Distribution |
|
Interest in Distributions |
|
||
|
|
Target Amount |
|
Unitholders |
|
General Partner |
|
First Target Distribution |
|
up to $0.4625 |
|
99.33 |
% |
0.67 |
% |
Second Target Distribution |
|
above $0.4625 up to $0.5375 |
|
86.33 |
% |
13.67 |
% |
Third Target Distribution |
|
above $0.5375 up to $0.6625 |
|
76.33 |
% |
23.67 |
% |
Thereafter |
|
above $0.6625 |
|
51.33 |
% |
48.67 |
% |
The Partnership paid the following cash distributions during 2016, 2015 and 2014 (in thousands, except per unit data):
|
|
Earned for the |
|
Per Unit |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash Distribution |
|
Quarter |
|
Cash |
|
Common |
|
General |
|
Incentive |
|
Total Cash |
|
|||||
Payment Date |
|
Ended |
|
Distribution |
|
Units |
|
Partner |
|
Distribution |
|
Distribution |
|
|||||
2014 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
02/14/14 (1)(2) |
|
12/31/13 |
|
$ |
0.6125 |
|
$ |
16,802 |
|
$ |
140 |
|
$ |
932 |
|
$ |
17,874 |
|
05/15/14 (1)(2) |
|
03/31/14 |
|
|
0.6250 |
|
|
17,145 |
|
|
143 |
|
|
1,035 |
|
|
18,323 |
|
08/14/14 (1)(2) |
|
06/30/14 |
|
|
0.6375 |
|
|
17,487 |
|
|
146 |
|
|
1,139 |
|
|
18,772 |
|
11/14/14 (1)(2) |
|
09/30/14 |
|
|
0.6525 |
|
|
17,899 |
|
|
150 |
|
|
1,270 |
|
|
19,319 |
|
2015 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
02/13/15 (3)(4) |
|
12/31/14 |
|
$ |
0.6650 |
|
$ |
20,612 |
|
$ |
154 |
|
$ |
1,591 |
|
$ |
22,357 |
|
05/15/15 (3)(4) |
|
03/31/15 |
|
|
0.6800 |
|
|
21,076 |
|
|
157 |
|
|
2,027 |
|
|
23,260 |
|
08/14/15 (4) |
|
06/30/15 |
|
|
0.6925 |
|
|
23,543 |
|
|
159 |
|
|
2,618 |
|
|
26,320 |
|
11/13/15 (4) |
|
09/30/15 |
|
|
0.6975 |
|
|
23,713 |
|
|
160 |
|
|
2,777 |
|
|
26,650 |
|
2016 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2/16/2016 |
|
12/31/15 |
|
$ |
0.4625 |
|
$ |
15,723 |
|
$ |
106 |
|
$ |
— |
|
$ |
15,829 |
|
5/16/2016 |
|
03/31/16 |
|
|
0.4625 |
|
|
15,723 |
|
|
106 |
|
|
— |
|
|
15,829 |
|
8/12/2016 |
|
06/30/16 |
|
|
0.4625 |
|
|
15,723 |
|
|
106 |
|
|
— |
|
|
15,829 |
|
11/14/2016 |
|
09/30/16 |
|
|
0.4625 |
|
|
15,723 |
|
|
106 |
|
|
— |
|
|
15,829 |
|
(1) |
Prior to the Partnership’s public offering in December 2014 (see Note 17), the limited partner interest was 99.17% and the general partner interest was 0.83%. |
F-61
(2) |
This distribution resulted in the Partnership exceeding its second target level distribution for the respective quarter. As a result, the General Partner, as the holder of the IDRs, received an incentive distribution. |
(3) |
Prior to the Partnership’s public offering in June 2015 (see Note 17), the limited partner interest was 99.26% and the general partner interest was 0.74%. |
(4) |
This distribution resulted in the Partnership exceeding its third target level distribution for the respective quarter. As a result, the General Partner, as the holder of the IDRs, received an incentive distribution. |
In addition, on January 30, 2017, the board of directors of the General Partner declared a quarterly cash distribution of $0.4625 per unit ($1.85 per unit on an annualized basis) on all of its outstanding common units for the period from October 1, 2016 through December 31, 2016 to the Partnership’s unitholders of record as of the close of business February 9, 2017. On February 14, 2017, the Partnership paid the total cash distribution of approximately $15.8 million.
Note 17. Unitholders’ Equity
Equity Offerings
On June 11, 2015, the Partnership entered into an underwriting agreement relating to the public offering of 3,000,000 common units at a price to the public of $38.12 per common unit. On June 16, 2015, the Partnership completed the offering, and the net proceeds of approximately $109.3 million (after deducting underwriting discounts and estimated expenses) were used to reduce indebtedness outstanding under the Partnership’s revolving credit facility.
On December 5, 2014, the Partnership entered into an underwriting agreement relating to the public offering of 3,565,000 common units at a price to the public of $40.24 per common unit. On December 10, 2014, the Partnership completed the offering, and the net proceeds of approximately $137.8 million (after deducting underwriting discounts and estimated expenses) were used to reduce indebtedness outstanding under the Partnership’s revolving credit facility.
At-the-Market Offering Program
On May 19, 2015, the Partnership entered into an equity distribution agreement pursuant to which the Partnership may sell from time to time through its sales agents, following a standard due diligence effort, the Partnership’s common units having an aggregate offering price of up to $50.0 million. Sales of the common units, if any, will be made by any method permitted by law deemed to be an “at-the-market” offering, including ordinary brokers’ transactions through the facilities of the New York Stock Exchange, to or through a market maker, or directly on or through an electronic communication network, a “dark pool” or any similar market venue, at market prices, in block transactions, or as otherwise agreed upon by the Partnership and one or more of its sales agents.
The Partnership may also sell common units to one or more of its sales agents as principal for its own account at a price to be agreed upon at the time of sale. Any sale of common units to a sales agent as principal would be pursuant to the terms of a separate agreement between the Partnership and such sales agent.
The Partnership intends to use the net proceeds from any sales pursuant to the at-the-market offering program, after deducting the sales agents’ commissions and the Partnership’s offering expenses, for general partnership purposes, which may include, among other things, repayment of indebtedness, acquisitions and capital expenditures.
The sales agents and/or affiliates of each of the sales agents have, from time to time, performed, and may in the future perform, various financial advisory and commercial and investment banking services for the Partnership and its affiliates, for which they have received and in the future will receive customary compensation and expense reimbursement. Affiliates of the sales agents are lenders under the Partnership’s credit facility and, accordingly, may receive a portion of the net proceeds from this offering if and to the extent any proceeds are used to reduce outstanding
F-62
borrowings under the Partnership’s credit facility.
No common units have been sold by the Partnership pursuant to the at-the-market offering program since inception.
Note 18. Business Combinations
2015 Acquisitions
Warren Equities, Inc.—On January 7, 2015, the Partnership acquired, through GMG, 100% of the equity interests in Warren, one of the largest independent marketers of petroleum products in the Northeast, from The Warren Alpert Foundation. The acquisition included 147 company-owned Xtra Mart convenience stores and related fuel operations, 53 commissioned agented locations and fuel supply rights for approximately 330 dealers. The acquired properties are located in the Northeast, Maryland and Virginia. The purchase price, inclusive of post-closing adjustments, was approximately $381.8 million, including working capital. The acquisition was funded with borrowings under the Partnership’s credit facility and with proceeds from its December 2014 public offering of 3,565,000 common units.
The acquisition was accounted for using the purchase method of accounting in accordance with the FASB’s guidance regarding business combinations. The Partnership’s financial statements include the results of operations of Warren subsequent to the acquisition date.
In connection with the acquisition of Warren, the Partnership recorded acquisition costs of $5.4 million and $1.7 million for the years ended December 31, 2015 and 2014, respectively, which are included in selling, general and administrative expenses in the accompanying consolidated statements of operations. Additionally, in January 2015 and subsequent to the acquisition date, the Partnership recorded a restructuring charge of approximately $2.3 million, which is included in selling, general and administrative expenses in the accompanying consolidated statement of operations for the year ended December 31, 2015. This charge, which was principally for redundant and/or eliminated positions as a result of the acquisition, was not part of the purchase price allocation. The $2.3 million restructuring charge was paid during the year ended December 31, 2015.
Revere Terminal—On January 14, 2015, through the Partnership’s wholly owned subsidiary, Global Companies, the Partnership acquired the Revere Terminal located in Boston Harbor in Revere, Massachusetts from GPC, a privately held affiliate of the Partnership, and related entities for a purchase price of $23.7 million. The acquisition includes contingent consideration which would be payable under specific circumstances involving a subsequent sale of the property during the eight years following the acquisition. The contingent consideration was estimated to be $0 as of the acquisition date as the Partnership concluded that the sale of the terminal for non-petroleum use within the eight years following the acquisition is not probable. There have been no changes to this assessment since the acquisition date. The Partnership financed the transaction with borrowings under its revolving credit facility. In connection with the Revere Terminal transaction, the pre-existing terminal storage rental and throughput agreement between the Partnership and GPC was terminated.
The acquisition was accounted for using the purchase method of accounting in accordance with the FASB’s guidance regarding business combinations. As the acquisition transitioned the Revere Terminal from a formerly leased facility to an owned facility, the transaction did not have a material impact on the Partnership’s consolidated financial statements.
Capitol Petroleum Group—On June 1, 2015, the Partnership acquired 97 primarily Mobil and Exxon branded owned or leased retail gasoline stations and seven dealer supply contracts in New York City and Prince George’s County, Maryland, along with certain related supply and franchise agreements and third-party leases and other assets
F-63
associated with the operations from Liberty Petroleum Realty, LLC, East River Petroleum Realty, LLC, Big Apple Petroleum Realty, LLC, White Oak Petroleum, LLC, Anacostia Realty, LLC, Mount Vernon Petroleum Realty, LLC and DAG Realty, LLC (collectively, “Capitol Petroleum Group”). The purchase price was approximately $155.7 million. The acquisition was financed with borrowings under the Partnership’s revolving credit facility.
The acquisition was accounted for using the purchase method of accounting in accordance with the FASB’s guidance regarding business combinations. The Partnership’s financial statements include the results of operations of Capitol subsequent to the acquisition date.
In connection with the acquisition of Capitol, the Partnership incurred acquisition costs of approximately $3.5 million which are included in selling, general and administrative expenses in the accompanying consolidated statement of operations for the year ended December 31, 2015.
Supplemental Pro Forma Information—Revenues and net income not included in the Partnership’s consolidated operating results for Warren from January 1, 2015 through January 7, 2015, the acquisition date, were immaterial. Accordingly, the supplemental pro forma information for the year ended December 31, 2015 is consistent with the amounts reported in the accompanying consolidated statement of operations for the year ended December 31, 2015 as it relates to Warren.
The following unaudited pro forma information presents the consolidated results of operations of the Partnership for the year ended December 31, 2015 as if the acquisition of Capitol occurred on January 1, 2015 (in thousands, except per unit data):
Sales |
$ |
10,540,275 |
|
Net income attributable to Global Partners LP |
$ |
47,555 |
|
Net income per limited partner unit, basic |
$ |
1.24 |
|
Net income per limited partner unit, diluted |
$ |
1.23 |
|
Note 19. Segment Reporting
The Partnership engages in the purchasing, selling, storing and logistics of transporting petroleum and related products, including domestic and Canadian crude oil, gasoline and gasoline blendstocks (such as ethanol), distillates (such as home heating oil, diesel and kerosene), residual oil, renewable fuels, natural gas and propane. The Partnership also receives revenue from convenience store sales and gasoline station rental income. The Partnership’s three operating segments are based upon the revenue sources for which discrete financial information is reviewed by the chief operating decision maker (the “CODM”) to make key operating decisions and assess performance and include Wholesale, GDSO and Commercial.
These operating segments are also the Partnership’s reporting segments. For the years ended December 31, 2016, 2015 and 2014, the Commercial operating segment did not meet the quantitative metrics for disclosure as a reportable segment on a stand‑alone basis as defined in accounting guidance related to segment reporting. However, the Partnership has elected to present segment disclosures for the Commercial operating segment as management believes such disclosures are helpful to the user of the Partnership’s financial information. The accounting policies of the segments are the same as those described in Note 2, “Summary of Significant Accounting Policies.”
In the Wholesale reporting segment, the Partnership sells branded and unbranded gasoline and gasoline blendstocks and diesel to wholesale distributors. The Partnership transports these products by railcars, barges and/or pipelines pursuant to spot or long‑term contracts. The Partnership aggregates crude oil by truck or pipeline in the mid-continent region of the United States and Canada, transports it by train and ships it by barge to refiners. The Partnership sells home heating oil, diesel, kerosene, residual oil and propane to home heating oil and propane retailers and wholesale
F-64
distributors. Generally, customers use their own vehicles or contract carriers to take delivery of the gasoline and distillates at bulk terminals and inland storage facilities that the Partnership owns or controls or with which it has throughput or exchange arrangements. Additionally, ethanol is shipped primarily by rail and by barge.
In the GDSO reporting segment, gasoline distribution includes sales of branded and unbranded gasoline to gasoline station operators and sub jobbers. Station operations include (i) convenience stores, (ii) rental income from gasoline stations leased to dealers, from commissioned agents and from cobranding arrangements and (iii) sundries (such as car wash sales, lottery and ATM commissions).
In the Commercial segment, the Partnership includes sales and deliveries to end user customers in the public sector and to large commercial and industrial end users of unbranded gasoline, home heating oil, diesel, kerosene, residual oil, bunker fuel and natural gas. In the case of public sector commercial and industrial end user customers, the Partnership sells products primarily either through a competitive bidding process or through contracts of various terms. The Partnership generally arranges for the delivery of the product to the customer’s designated location, and the Partnership responds to publicly-issued requests for product proposals and quotes. The Commercial segment also includes sales of custom blended fuels delivered by barges or from a terminal dock to ships through bunkering activity.
An important measure used by the Partnership and the CODM to evaluate segment performance is product margin, which the Partnership defines as product sales minus product costs. Based on the way the business is managed, components of indirect operating costs and corporate expenses are not allocated to the reportable segments.
F-65
Summarized financial information for the Partnership’s reportable segments for the years ended December 31 is presented in the table below (in thousands):
|
|
2016 |
|
2015 |
|
2014 |
|
|||
Wholesale Segment: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sales |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gasoline and gasoline blendstocks |
|
$ |
2,026,315 |
|
$ |
2,714,057 |
|
$ |
7,076,105 |
|
Crude oil (1) |
|
|
546,541 |
|
|
1,190,560 |
|
|
2,384,018 |
|
Other oils and related products (2) |
|
|
1,534,165 |
|
|
2,006,668 |
|
|
3,436,006 |
|
Total |
|
$ |
4,107,021 |
|
$ |
5,911,285 |
|
$ |
12,896,129 |
|
Product margin |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gasoline and gasoline blendstocks |
|
$ |
83,742 |
|
$ |
66,031 |
|
$ |
71,713 |
|
Crude oil (1) |
|
|
(13,098) |
|
|
74,182 |
|
|
141,965 |
|
Other oils and related products (2) |
|
|
74,271 |
|
|
67,709 |
|
|
79,376 |
|
Total |
|
$ |
144,915 |
|
$ |
207,922 |
|
$ |
293,054 |
|
Gasoline Distribution and Station Operations Segment (3): |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sales |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gasoline |
|
$ |
3,071,517 |
|
$ |
3,289,742 |
|
$ |
3,241,620 |
|
Station operations (4) |
|
|
371,661 |
|
|
381,194 |
|
|
165,756 |
|
Total |
|
$ |
3,443,178 |
|
$ |
3,670,936 |
|
$ |
3,407,376 |
|
Product margin |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gasoline |
|
$ |
289,420 |
|
$ |
276,848 |
|
$ |
189,439 |
|
Station operations (4) |
|
|
183,708 |
|
|
178,487 |
|
|
93,939 |
|
Total |
|
$ |
473,128 |
|
$ |
455,335 |
|
$ |
283,378 |
|
Commercial Segment: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sales |
|
$ |
689,440 |
|
$ |
732,631 |
|
$ |
966,449 |
|
Product margin |
|
$ |
24,018 |
|
$ |
29,201 |
|
$ |
29,716 |
|
Combined sales and Product margin: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sales |
|
$ |
8,239,639 |
|
$ |
10,314,852 |
|
$ |
17,269,954 |
|
Product margin (5) |
|
$ |
642,061 |
|
$ |
692,458 |
|
$ |
606,148 |
|
Depreciation allocated to cost of sales |
|
|
(95,571) |
|
|
(94,789) |
|
|
(61,361) |
|
Combined gross profit |
|
$ |
546,490 |
|
$ |
597,669 |
|
$ |
544,787 |
|
(1) |
Crude oil consists of the Partnership’s crude oil sales and revenue from its logistics activities. |
(2) |
Other oils and related products primarily consist of distillates, residual oil and propane. |
(3) |
The GDSO segment for 2015 includes the results of the January 2015 acquisition of Warren and the June 2015 acquisition of Capitol (see Note 18). As the Warren assets and the Capitol assets were not in place prior to 2015, the above results are not directly comparable to the prior period. |
(4) |
Station operations primarily consist of convenience store sales and rental income. |
(5) |
Product margin is a non-GAAP financial measure used by management and external users of the Partnership’s consolidated financial statements to assess its business. The table above includes a reconciliation of product margin on a combined basis to gross profit, a directly comparable GAAP measure. |
Approximately 500 million gallons, 450 million gallons and 450 million gallons of the GDSO segment’s sales for the years ended December 31, 2016, 2015 and 2014, respectively, were supplied from petroleum products and renewable fuels sourced by the Wholesale segment. Except for natural gas, predominantly all of the Commercial segment’s sales are sourced by the Wholesale segment. These intra-segment sales are not reflected as sales in the Wholesale segment as they are eliminated.
None of the Partnership’s customers accounted for greater than 10% of total sales for years ended December 31, 2016 and 2015. In the Wholesale segment, the Partnership had one customer, ExxonMobil, whose revenues were approximately $2.9 billion (17%) of the Partnership’s total revenues for the year ended December 31, 2014.
F-66
A reconciliation of the totals reported for the reportable segments to the applicable line items in the consolidated financial statements for the years ended December 31 is as follows (in thousands):
|
|
2016 |
|
2015 |
|
2014 |
|
|||
Combined gross profit |
|
$ |
546,490 |
|
$ |
597,669 |
|
$ |
544,787 |
|
Operating costs and expenses not allocated to operating segments: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Selling, general and administrative expenses |
|
|
149,673 |
|
|
177,043 |
|
|
153,961 |
|
Operating expenses |
|
|
288,547 |
|
|
290,307 |
|
|
204,070 |
|
Lease exit and termination expenses |
|
|
80,665 |
|
|
— |
|
|
— |
|
Amortization expense |
|
|
9,389 |
|
|
13,499 |
|
|
18,867 |
|
Net loss on sale and disposition of assets |
|
|
20,495 |
|
|
2,097 |
|
|
2,182 |
|
Goodwill and long-lived asset impairment |
|
|
149,972 |
|
|
— |
|
|
— |
|
Total operating costs and expenses |
|
|
698,741 |
|
|
482,946 |
|
|
379,080 |
|
Operating (loss) income |
|
|
(152,251) |
|
|
114,723 |
|
|
165,707 |
|
Interest expense |
|
|
(86,319) |
|
|
(73,332) |
|
|
(47,764) |
|
Income tax (expense) benefit |
|
|
(53) |
|
|
1,873 |
|
|
(963) |
|
Net (loss) income |
|
|
(238,623) |
|
|
43,264 |
|
|
116,980 |
|
Net loss (income) attributable to noncontrolling interest |
|
|
39,211 |
|
|
299 |
|
|
(2,271) |
|
Net (loss) income attributable to Global Partners LP |
|
$ |
(199,412) |
|
$ |
43,563 |
|
$ |
114,709 |
|
The Partnership’s foreign assets and foreign sales were immaterial as of and for the years ended December 31, 2016, 2015 and 2014.
Segment Assets
The Partnership’s terminal assets are allocated to the Wholesale and Commercial segments, and its retail gasoline stations are allocated to the GDSO segment. Due to the commingled nature and uses of the remainder of the Partnership’s assets, it is not reasonably possible for the Partnership to allocate these assets among its reportable segments.
The table below presents total assets by reportable segment at December 31, (in thousands):
|
|
|
Wholesale |
|
|
Commercial |
|
|
GDSO |
|
|
Unallocated |
|
|
Total |
December 31, 2016 |
|
$ |
830,662 |
|
$ |
134 |
|
$ |
1,294,568 |
|
$ |
438,656 |
|
$ |
2,564,020 |
December 31, 2015 |
|
$ |
875,131 |
|
$ |
3,224 |
|
$ |
1,403,810 |
|
$ |
381,510 |
|
$ |
2,663,675 |
F-67
Note 20. Changes in Accumulated Other Comprehensive Loss
The following table presents the changes in accumulated other comprehensive loss by component (in thousands):
|
|
Pension Plan |
|
Derivatives |
|
Total |
|
|||
Balance at December 31, 2014 |
|
$ |
(5,547) |
|
$ |
(7,705) |
|
$ |
(13,252) |
|
Other comprehensive (loss) income before reclassifications of gain (loss) |
|
|
1,192 |
|
|
4,047 |
|
|
5,239 |
|
Amount of gain (loss) reclassified from accumulated other comprehensive (loss) income |
|
|
(81) |
|
|
— |
|
|
(81) |
|
Total comprehensive income |
|
|
1,111 |
|
|
4,047 |
|
|
5,158 |
|
Balance at December 31, 2015 |
|
|
(4,436) |
|
|
(3,658) |
|
|
(8,094) |
|
Other comprehensive income before reclassifications of gain (loss) |
|
|
149 |
|
|
2,486 |
|
|
2,635 |
|
Amount of gain (loss) reclassified from accumulated other comprehensive (loss) income |
|
|
18 |
|
|
— |
|
|
18 |
|
Total comprehensive income |
|
|
167 |
|
|
2,486 |
|
|
2,653 |
|
Balance at December 31, 2016 |
|
$ |
(4,269) |
|
$ |
(1,172) |
|
$ |
(5,441) |
|
Amounts are presented prior to the income tax effect on other comprehensive income. Given the Partnership’s master limited partnership status, the effective tax rate is immaterial.
Note 21. Legal Proceedings
General
Although the Partnership may, from time to time, be involved in litigation and claims arising out of its operations in the normal course of business, the Partnership does not believe that it is a party to any litigation that will have a material adverse impact on its financial condition or results of operations. Except as described below and in Note 12 included herein, the Partnership is not aware of any significant legal or governmental proceedings against it, or contemplated to be brought against it. The Partnership maintains insurance policies with insurers in amounts and with coverage and deductibles as its general partner believes are reasonable and prudent. However, the Partnership can provide no assurance that this insurance will be adequate to protect it from all material expenses related to potential future claims or that these levels of insurance will be available in the future at economically acceptable prices.
Other
The Partnership determined that gasoline loaded from certain loading bays at one of its terminals did not contain the necessary additives as a result of an IT-related configuration error. The error was corrected and all gasoline being sold at the terminal now contains the appropriate additives. Based upon current information, the Partnership believes approximately 14 million gallons of gasoline were impacted. The Partnership has notified the EPA of this error. As a result of this error, the Partnership could be subject to fines, penalties and other related claims, including customer claims.
In February 2016, the Partnership received a request for information from the EPA seeking certain information regarding its Albany terminal in order to assess its compliance with the Clean Air Act (the “CAA”). The information requested generally related to crude oil received by, stored at and shipped from the Partnership’s petroleum product transloading facility in Albany, New York (the “Albany Terminal”), including its composition, control devices for emissions and various permitting-related considerations. The Albany Terminal is a 63-acre licensed, permitted and
F-68
operational stationary bulk petroleum storage and transfer terminal that currently consists of petroleum product storage tanks, along with truck, rail and marine loading facilities, for the storage, blending and distribution of various petroleum and related products, including gasoline, ethanol, distillates, heating and crude oils. No violations were alleged in the request for information. The Partnership submitted responses and documentation, in March and April 2016, to the EPA in accordance with the EPA request. On August 2, 2016, the Partnership received a Notice of Violation (“NOV”) from the EPA, alleging that permits for the Albany Terminal, issued by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (“NYSDEC”) between August 9, 2011 and November 7, 2012, violated the CAA and the federally enforceable New York State Implementation Plan (“SIP”) by increasing throughput of crude oil at the Albany Terminal without complying with the New Source Review (“NSR”) requirements of the SIP. The applicable permits issued by the NYSDEC to the Partnership in 2011 and 2012 specifically authorize the Partnership to increase the throughput of crude oil at the Albany Terminal. According to the allegations in the NOV, the NYSDEC permits should have been regulated as a major modification under the NSR program, requiring additional emission control measures and compliance with other NSR requirements. The NYSDEC has not alleged that the Partnership’s permits were subject to the NSR program. The CAA authorizes the EPA to take enforcement action in response to violations of the New York SIP seeking compliance and penalties. The Partnership believes that the permits issued by the NYSDEC comply with the CAA and applicable State air permitting requirements and that no material violation of law has occurred. The Partnership disputes the claims alleged in the NOV and responded to the EPA in September, 2016. The Partnership has met with the EPA and provided additional information at the agency’s request. On December 16, 2016, the EPA proposed a Settlement Agreement in a letter to the Partnership relating to the allegations in the NOV. On January 17, 2017, the Partnership responded to the EPA indicating that the EPA had failed to explain or provide support for its allegations and that the EPA should better explain its positions and the evidence on which it was relying. To-date, the EPA has not responded to the Partnership’s response and has not taken any further action with respect to the NOV.
By letter dated October 5, 2015, the Partnership received a notice of intent to sue (the “October NOI”), which supersedes and replaces a prior notice of intent to sue that the Partnership received on September 1, 2015 (the “September NOI”) from Earthjustice, an environmental advocacy organization on behalf of the County of Albany, New York, a public housing development owned and operated by the Albany Housing Authority and certain environmental organizations, related to alleged violations of the CAA, particularly with respect to crude oil operations at the Albany Terminal. The October NOI revises the superseded and replaced September NOI to add two additional environmental advocacy organizations and to revise the relief sought and the description of the alleged CAA violations.
On February 3, 2016, Earthjustice and the other entities identified in the October NOI filed suit against the Partnership in federal court in Albany under the citizen suit provisions of the CAA. In summary, this lawsuit alleges that certain of the Partnership’s operations at the Albany Terminal are in violation of the CAA. The plaintiffs seek, among other things, relief that would compel the Partnership both to apply for what the plaintiffs contend is the applicable permit under the CAA, and to install additional pollution controls. In addition, the plaintiffs seek to prohibit the Albany Terminal from receiving, storing, handling, and marine loading certain types of Bakken crude oil and to require payment of a civil penalty of $37,500 for each day the Partnership as operated the Albany Terminal in violation of the CAA. The Partnership believes that it has meritorious defenses against all allegations. On February 26, 2016, the Partnership filed a motion to dismiss the CAA action. No decision has yet been issued by the Court and all discovery and other litigation activity is stayed pending a decision by the Court on the motion to dismiss.
By letter dated January 25, 2017, the Partnership received a notice of intent to sue (the “2017 NOI”) from Earthjustice related to alleged violations of the CAA; specifically alleging that the Partnership was operating the Albany Terminal without a valid CAA Title V Permit. On February 9, 2017, the Partnership responded to Earthjustice advising that the 2017 NOI was without factual or legal merit and that the Partnership would move to dismiss any action commenced by Earthjustice. At this time, there has been no further action taken by Earthjustice. Neither the EPA nor the NYSDEC has followed up on the NOI. The Albany Terminal is currently operating pursuant to its Title V Permit. The Partnership believes that it has meritorious defenses against all allegations.
F-69
On May 29, 2015 and in connection with a commercial dispute with Tethys Trading Company LLC (“Tethys”), the Partnership received a notice from Tethys alleging a default under, and purporting to terminate, the Partnership’s contract with Tethys for crude oil services at the Partnership’s Oregon facility. However, the Partnership does not believe Tethys had the right to terminate the contract, and the Partnership will continue to investigate and determine the appropriate action to take to enforce its rights under the agreement.
On March 26, 2015, the Partnership received a Notice of Non-Compliance (“NON”) from the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (“DEP”) with respect to the Revere Terminal, alleging certain violations of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit (“NPDES Permit”) related to storm water discharges. The NON required the Partnership to submit a plan to remedy the reported violations of the NPDES Permit. The Partnership has responded to the NON with a plan and has implemented modifications to the storm water management system at the Revere Terminal in accordance with the plan. The Partnership has requested that the DEP acknowledge completion of the required modifications to the storm water management system in satisfaction of the NON. While no response has yet been received, the Partnership believes that compliance with the NON has been achieved, and implementation of the plan will have no material impact on its operations.
The Partnership had a dispute with Lansing Ethanol Services, LLC (“Lansing”) for damages in excess of $12.0 million. The dispute involved Lansing’s failure to transfer RINs to the Partnership in connection with certain agreements for the purchase and sale of ethanol. The parties had agreed to arbitrate under the rules of the American Arbitration Association. The Partnership filed for arbitration on March 24, 2015 and the hearing was conducted in March 2016. A decision was rendered on June 10, 2016, which netted the Partnership $1.5 million. Neither party appealed the decision and the appeal period expired on July 14, 2016. The parties executed a Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release on August 2, 2016, and payment was made by Lansing and received by the Partnership on that date.
On May 16, 2014, the Partnership received a subpoena from the SEC requesting information for relevant time periods primarily relating to the Partnership’s accounting for RINs and the restatements of its consolidated financial statements as of and for the quarters ended March 31, 2013, June 30, 2013 and September 30, 2013. The Partnership has cooperated fully with the SEC and believes it has provided the SEC with all requested materials. On October 26, 2016, the Partnership was informed that the SEC has concluded its investigation and does not intend to recommend that an enforcement action by the SEC be taken against the Partnership.
The Partnership received letters from the EPA dated November 2, 2011 and March 29, 2012, containing requirements and testing orders (collectively, the “Requests for Information”) for information under the CAA. The Requests for Information were part of an EPA investigation to determine whether the Partnership has violated sections of the CAA at certain of its terminal locations in New England with respect to residual oil and asphalt. On June 6, 2014, a NOV was received from the EPA, alleging certain violations of its Air Emissions License issued by the Maine Department of Environmental Protection, based upon the test results at the South Portland, Maine terminal. The Partnership met with and provided additional information to the EPA with respect to the alleged violations. On April 7, 2015, the EPA issued a Supplemental Notice of Violation (the “Supplemental NOV”) modifying the allegations of violations of the terminal’s Air Emissions License. The Partnership has responded to the Supplemental NOV and is engaged in further negotiations with the EPA. A tolling agreement was executed with the United States on December 1, 2015, which has currently been extended through March 31, 2017. While the Partnership does not believe that a material violation has occurred, and it contests the allegations presented in the NOV and Supplemental NOV, the Partnership does not believe any adverse determination in connection with the NOV would have a material impact on its operations.
F-70
Note 22. Supplemental Cash Flow Information
The following table presents cash flow supplemental information for the years ended December 31 (in thousands):
|
|
2016 |
|
2015 |
|
2014 |
|
|||
Borrowings from working capital revolving credit facility |
|
$ |
1,675,100 |
|
$ |
1,811,300 |
|
$ |
2,703,900 |
|
Payments on working capital revolving credit facility |
|
|
(1,498,600) |
|
|
(1,663,200) |
|
|
(2,930,900) |
|
Net borrowings from (payments on) working capital revolving credit facility |
|
$ |
176,500 |
|
$ |
148,100 |
|
$ |
(227,000) |
|
Borrowings from revolving credit facility |
|
$ |
82,000 |
|
$ |
544,900 |
|
$ |
69,300 |
|
Payments on revolving credit facility |
|
|
(134,300) |
|
|
(409,700) |
|
|
(370,200) |
|
Net (payments on) borrowings from revolving credit facility |
|
$ |
(52,300) |
|
$ |
135,200 |
|
$ |
(300,900) |
|
Note 23. Quarterly Financial Data (Unaudited)
Unaudited quarterly financial data is as follows (in thousands, except per unit amounts):
|
|
First |
|
Second |
|
Third |
|
Fourth |
|
Total |
|
|||||
Year ended December 31, 2016 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sales |
|
$ |
1,750,812 |
|
$ |
2,146,199 |
|
$ |
2,030,198 |
|
$ |
2,312,430 |
|
$ |
8,239,639 |
|
Gross profit (1) |
|
$ |
130,059 |
|
$ |
129,342 |
|
$ |
132,611 |
|
$ |
154,478 |
|
$ |
546,490 |
|
Net loss (2)(3)(4) |
|
$ |
(7,835) |
|
$ |
(8,543) |
|
$ |
(156,583) |
|
$ |
(65,662) |
|
$ |
(238,623) |
|
Net loss attributable to Global Partners LP (5) |
|
$ |
(7,024) |
|
$ |
(7,310) |
|
$ |
(119,551) |
|
$ |
(65,527) |
|
$ |
(199,412) |
|
Limited partners’ interest in net loss |
|
$ |
(6,977) |
|
$ |
(7,261) |
|
$ |
(118,750) |
|
$ |
(65,088) |
|
$ |
(198,076) |
|
Basic net loss per limited partner unit |
|
$ |
(0.21) |
|
$ |
(0.22) |
|
$ |
(3.54) |
|
$ |
(1.94) |
|
$ |
(5.91) |
|
Diluted net loss per limited partner unit |
|
$ |
(0.21) |
|
$ |
(0.22) |
|
$ |
(3.54) |
|
$ |
(1.94) |
|
$ |
(5.91) |
|
Cash distributions per limited partner unit (6) |
|
$ |
0.4625 |
|
$ |
0.4625 |
|
$ |
0.4625 |
|
$ |
0.4625 |
|
$ |
1.85 |
|
(1) |
Includes $28.0 million in revenue in the fourth quarter related to the absence of logistics nominations from one particular contract customer, specifically in the second, third and fourth quarters, and logistics revenue related to this contract in the first quarter. |
(2) |
Includes a net loss on sale and disposition of assets of $6.1 million, $0.4 million, $7.5 million and $6.5 million in the first, second, third and fourth quarters of 2016, respectively. |
(3) |
Includes a goodwill and long-lived asset impairment of $149.9 million in the third quarter of 2016. |
(4) |
Includes lease exit and termination expenses of $80.7 million in the fourth quarter of 2016. |
(5) |
Includes a net goodwill and long-lived asset impairment of $114.1 million ($149.9 million attributed to the Partnership, offset by $35.8 million attributed to the noncontrolling interest) in the third quarter of 2016. |
(6) |
Cash distributions declared in one calendar quarter are paid in the following calendar quarter. |
F-71
|
|
First |
|
Second |
|
Third |
|
Fourth |
|
Total |
|
|||||
Year ended December 31, 2015 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sales |
|
$ |
2,979,116 |
|
$ |
2,680,088 |
|
$ |
2,486,203 |
|
$ |
2,169,445 |
|
$ |
10,314,852 |
|
Gross profit (7) |
|
$ |
168,558 |
|
$ |
144,188 |
|
$ |
152,299 |
|
$ |
132,624 |
|
$ |
597,669 |
|
Net income (loss) (7)(8)(9) |
|
$ |
30,409 |
|
$ |
7,614 |
|
$ |
8,146 |
|
$ |
(2,905) |
|
$ |
43,264 |
|
Net income (loss) attributable to Global Partners LP |
|
$ |
30,415 |
|
$ |
7,218 |
|
$ |
8,212 |
|
$ |
(2,282) |
|
$ |
43,563 |
|
Limited partners’ interest in net (loss) income |
|
$ |
28,236 |
|
$ |
4,547 |
|
$ |
5,380 |
|
$ |
(2,267) |
|
$ |
35,896 |
|
Basic net income (loss) per limited partner unit |
|
$ |
0.92 |
|
$ |
0.15 |
|
$ |
0.16 |
|
$ |
(0.07) |
|
$ |
1.12 |
|
Diluted net income (loss) per limited partner unit |
|
$ |
0.92 |
|
$ |
0.15 |
|
$ |
0.16 |
|
$ |
(0.07) |
|
$ |
1.11 |
|
Cash distributions per limited partner unit (6) |
|
$ |
0.6650 |
|
$ |
0.6800 |
|
$ |
0.6925 |
|
$ |
0.6975 |
|
$ |
2.74 |
|
(7) |
Includes a $5.0 million charge related to a customer dispute in the first quarter of 2015. |
(8) |
Includes the following charges in connection with the acquisition of Warren: (i) acquisition costs of $4.4 million and $1.0 million in the first and second quarters of 2015, respectively; and (ii) a restructuring charge of $2.3 million in the first quarter of 2015. |
(9) |
Includes acquisition costs in connection with the acquisition of Capitol of $3.1 million, $0.1 million and $0.3 million in the second, third and fourth quarters of 2015, respectively. |
Note 24. Subsequent Events
Distribution— On February 14, 2017, the Partnership paid a cash distribution of approximately $15.8 million to its unitholders of record as of the close of business on February 9, 2017.
Sale of Terminal Assets—On February 2, 2017, the Partnership began soliciting proposals for the potential sale of six refined petroleum products terminals located in New England, New York and Pennsylvania. The assets consist of product terminals that represent 1.1 million barrels of aggregate storage capacity. These assets did not meet the criteria to be presented as held for sale as of December 31, 2016.
Sale of Natural Gas and Electricity Business—On February 1, 2017, the Partnership completed the sale of its natural gas marketing and electricity brokerage businesses for approximately $17.3 million, subject to customary closing adjustments. Net proceeds from the sale amounted to approximately $16.3 million. The sale of the natural gas marketing and electricity brokerage businesses reflects the Partnership’s ongoing program to monetize non-strategic assets that are not fundamental to its growth strategy. Prior to the sale, the results of natural gas marketing and electricity brokerage business were included in the Commercial segment.
Sale of Gasoline Stations—Beginning in April 2016, the Partnership retained a real estate firm to coordinate the sales of non-strategic GDSO sites which are part of the Divestiture Program. At December 31, 2016, the Divestiture Program included approximately 80 sites, 29 of which the Partnership has sold and 30 of which met the criteria to be presented as held for sale (see Note 5). Through February 2017, the criteria to be presented as held for sale was met for an additional 9 sites with a net book value of $4.8 million at December 31, 2016. Assets held for sale are expected to be sold within the next 12 months.
F-72
Note 25. Supplemental Guarantor Condensed Consolidating Financial Statements
The Partnership’s wholly-owned subsidiaries, other than GLP Finance, are guarantors of senior notes issued by the Partnership and GLP Finance. As such, the Partnership is subject to the requirements of Rule 3-10 of Regulation S-X of the SEC regarding financial statements of guarantors and issuers of registered guaranteed securities. The Partnership presents condensed consolidating financial information for its subsidiaries within the notes to consolidated financial statements in accordance with the criteria established for parent companies in the SEC’s Regulation S-X, Rule 3-10(d). The following condensed consolidating financial information presents the Condensed Consolidating Balance Sheets as of December 31, 2016 and 2015, the Condensed Consolidating Statements of Operations for the years ended December 31, 2016, 2015 and 2014 and the Condensed Consolidating Statements of Cash Flows for the years ended December 31, 2016, 2015 and 2014 of the Partnership’s 100% owned guarantor subsidiaries, the non-guarantor subsidiary and the eliminations necessary to arrive at the information for the Partnership on a consolidated basis. The principal elimination entries eliminate investments in subsidiaries and intercompany balances and transactions.
F-73
Condensed Consolidating Balance Sheet
December 31, 2016
(In thousands)
|
|
(Issuer) |
|
Non- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
Guarantor |
|
Guarantor |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
Subsidiaries |
|
Subsidiary |
|
Eliminations |
|
Consolidated |
|
||||
Assets |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current assets: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents |
|
$ |
9,373 |
|
$ |
655 |
|
$ |
— |
|
$ |
10,028 |
|
Accounts receivable, net |
|
|
420,897 |
|
|
213 |
|
|
250 |
|
|
421,360 |
|
Accounts receivable - affiliates |
|
|
2,865 |
|
|
528 |
|
|
(250) |
|
|
3,143 |
|
Inventories |
|
|
521,878 |
|
|
— |
|
|
— |
|
|
521,878 |
|
Brokerage margin deposits |
|
|
27,653 |
|
|
— |
|
|
— |
|
|
27,653 |
|
Derivative assets |
|
|
21,382 |
|
|
— |
|
|
— |
|
|
21,382 |
|
Prepaid expenses and other current assets |
|
|
69,872 |
|
|
150 |
|
|
— |
|
|
70,022 |
|
Total current assets |
|
|
1,073,920 |
|
|
1,546 |
|
|
— |
|
|
1,075,466 |
|
Property and equipment, net |
|
|
1,087,964 |
|
|
11,935 |
|
|
— |
|
|
1,099,899 |
|
Intangible assets, net |
|
|
65,013 |
|
|
— |
|
|
— |
|
|
65,013 |
|
Goodwill |
|
|
294,768 |
|
|
— |
|
|
— |
|
|
294,768 |
|
Other assets |
|
|
28,874 |
|
|
— |
|
|
— |
|
|
28,874 |
|
Total assets |
|
$ |
2,550,539 |
|
$ |
13,481 |
|
$ |
— |
|
$ |
2,564,020 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Liabilities and partners' equity |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current liabilities: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accounts payable |
|
$ |
320,003 |
|
$ |
259 |
|
$ |
— |
|
$ |
320,262 |
|
Working capital revolving credit facility - current portion |
|
|
274,600 |
|
|
— |
|
|
— |
|
|
274,600 |
|
Environmental liabilities - current portion |
|
|
5,341 |
|
|
— |
|
|
— |
|
|
5,341 |
|
Trustee taxes payable |
|
|
101,166 |
|
|
— |
|
|
— |
|
|
101,166 |
|
Accrued expenses and other current liabilities |
|
|
70,262 |
|
|
181 |
|
|
— |
|
|
70,443 |
|
Derivative liabilities |
|
|
27,413 |
|
|
— |
|
|
— |
|
|
27,413 |
|
Total current liabilities |
|
|
798,785 |
|
|
440 |
|
|
— |
|
|
799,225 |
|
Working capital revolving credit facility - less current portion |
|
|
150,000 |
|
|
— |
|
|
— |
|
|
150,000 |
|
Revolving credit facility |
|
|
216,700 |
|
|
— |
|
|
— |
|
|
216,700 |
|
Senior notes |
|
|
659,150 |
|
|
— |
|
|
— |
|
|
659,150 |
|
Environmental liabilities - less current portion |
|
|
57,724 |
|
|
— |
|
|
— |
|
|
57,724 |
|
Financing obligations |
|
|
152,444 |
|
|
— |
|
|
— |
|
|
152,444 |
|
Deferred tax liabilities |
|
|
66,054 |
|
|
— |
|
|
— |
|
|
66,054 |
|
Other long-term liabilities |
|
|
64,882 |
|
|
— |
|
|
— |
|
|
64,882 |
|
Total liabilities |
|
|
2,165,739 |
|
|
440 |
|
|
— |
|
|
2,166,179 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Partners' equity |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Global Partners LP equity |
|
|
384,800 |
|
|
7,855 |
|
|
— |
|
|
392,655 |
|
Noncontrolling interest |
|
|
— |
|
|
5,186 |
|
|
— |
|
|
5,186 |
|
Total partners' equity |
|
|
384,800 |
|
|
13,041 |
|
|
— |
|
|
397,841 |
|
Total liabilities and partners' equity |
|
$ |
2,550,539 |
|
$ |
13,481 |
|
$ |
— |
|
$ |
2,564,020 |
|
F-74
Condensed Consolidating Balance Sheet
December 31, 2015
(In thousands)
|
|
(Issuer) |
|
Non- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
Guarantor |
|
Guarantor |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
Subsidiaries |
|
Subsidiary |
|
Eliminations |
|
Consolidated |
|
||||
Assets |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current assets: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents |
|
$ |
— |
|
$ |
4,690 |
|
$ |
(3,574) |
|
$ |
1,116 |
|
Accounts receivable, net |
|
|
311,079 |
|
|
275 |
|
|
— |
|
|
311,354 |
|
Accounts receivable - affiliates |
|
|
2,745 |
|
|
746 |
|
|
(913) |
|
|
2,578 |
|
Inventories |
|
|
388,952 |
|
|
— |
|
|
— |
|
|
388,952 |
|
Brokerage margin deposits |
|
|
31,327 |
|
|
— |
|
|
— |
|
|
31,327 |
|
Derivative assets |
|
|
66,099 |
|
|
— |
|
|
— |
|
|
66,099 |
|
Prepaid expenses and other current assets |
|
|
65,376 |
|
|
233 |
|
|
— |
|
|
65,609 |
|
Total current assets |
|
|
865,578 |
|
|
5,944 |
|
|
(4,487) |
|
|
867,035 |
|
Property and equipment, net |
|
|
1,203,251 |
|
|
39,432 |
|
|
— |
|
|
1,242,683 |
|
Intangible assets, net |
|
|
75,694 |
|
|
— |
|
|
— |
|
|
75,694 |
|
Goodwill |
|
|
349,306 |
|
|
86,063 |
|
|
— |
|
|
435,369 |
|
Other assets |
|
|
42,894 |
|
|
— |
|
|
— |
|
|
42,894 |
|
Total assets |
|
$ |
2,536,723 |
|
$ |
131,439 |
|
$ |
(4,487) |
|
$ |
2,663,675 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Liabilities and partners' equity |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current liabilities: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash overdraft |
|
$ |
3,574 |
|
$ |
— |
|
$ |
(3,574) |
|
$ |
— |
|
Accounts payable |
|
|
303,242 |
|
|
539 |
|
|
— |
|
|
303,781 |
|
Accounts payable - affiliates |
|
|
746 |
|
|
167 |
|
|
(913) |
|
|
— |
|
Working capital revolving credit facility - current portion |
|
|
98,100 |
|
|
— |
|
|
— |
|
|
98,100 |
|
Environmental liabilities - current portion |
|
|
5,350 |
|
|
— |
|
|
— |
|
|
5,350 |
|
Trustee taxes payable |
|
|
95,264 |
|
|
— |
|
|
— |
|
|
95,264 |
|
Accrued expenses and other current liabilities |
|
|
59,742 |
|
|
586 |
|
|
— |
|
|
60,328 |
|
Derivative liabilities |
|
|
31,911 |
|
|
— |
|
|
— |
|
|
31,911 |
|
Total current liabilities |
|
|
597,929 |
|
|
1,292 |
|
|
(4,487) |
|
|
594,734 |
|
Working capital revolving credit facility - less current portion |
|
|
150,000 |
|
|
— |
|
|
— |
|
|
150,000 |
|
Revolving credit facility |
|
|
269,000 |
|
|
— |
|
|
— |
|
|
269,000 |
|
Senior notes |
|
|
656,564 |
|
|
— |
|
|
— |
|
|
656,564 |
|
Environmental liabilities - less current portion |
|
|
67,883 |
|
|
— |
|
|
— |
|
|
67,883 |
|
Financing obligations |
|
|
89,790 |
|
|
— |
|
|
— |
|
|
89,790 |
|
Deferred tax liabilities |
|
|
84,836 |
|
|
— |
|
|
— |
|
|
84,836 |
|
Other long-term liabilities |
|
|
56,884 |
|
|
— |
|
|
— |
|
|
56,884 |
|
Total liabilities |
|
|
1,972,886 |
|
|
1,292 |
|
|
(4,487) |
|
|
1,969,691 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Partners' equity |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Global Partners LP equity |
|
|
563,837 |
|
|
83,952 |
|
|
— |
|
|
647,789 |
|
Noncontrolling interest |
|
|
— |
|
|
46,195 |
|
|
— |
|
|
46,195 |
|
Total partners' equity |
|
|
563,837 |
|
|
130,147 |
|
|
— |
|
|
693,984 |
|
Total liabilities and partners' equity |
|
$ |
2,536,723 |
|
$ |
131,439 |
|
$ |
(4,487) |
|
$ |
2,663,675 |
|
F-75
Condensed Consolidating Statement of Operations
For the Year Ended December 31, 2016
(In thousands)
|
|
(Issuer) |
|
Non- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
Guarantor |
|
Guarantor |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
Subsidiaries |
|
Subsidiary |
|
Eliminations |
|
Consolidated |
|
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sales |
|
$ |
8,236,847 |
|
$ |
5,961 |
|
$ |
(3,169) |
|
$ |
8,239,639 |
|
Cost of sales |
|
|
7,686,875 |
|
|
9,443 |
|
|
(3,169) |
|
|
7,693,149 |
|
Gross profit |
|
|
549,972 |
|
|
(3,482) |
|
|
— |
|
|
546,490 |
|
Costs and operating expenses: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Selling, general and administrative expenses |
|
|
148,829 |
|
|
844 |
|
|
— |
|
|
149,673 |
|
Operating expenses |
|
|
284,430 |
|
|
4,117 |
|
|
— |
|
|
288,547 |
|
Lease exit and termination expenses |
|
|
80,665 |
|
|
— |
|
|
— |
|
|
80,665 |
|
Amortization expense |
|
|
9,389 |
|
|
— |
|
|
— |
|
|
9,389 |
|
Net loss on sale and disposition of assets |
|
|
20,495 |
|
|
— |
|
|
— |
|
|
20,495 |
|
Goodwill and long-lived asset impairment |
|
|
45,803 |
|
|
104,169 |
|
|
— |
|
|
149,972 |
|
Total costs and operating expenses |
|
|
589,611 |
|
|
109,130 |
|
|
— |
|
|
698,741 |
|
Operating loss |
|
|
(39,639) |
|
|
(112,612) |
|
|
— |
|
|
(152,251) |
|
Interest expense |
|
|
(86,319) |
|
|
— |
|
|
— |
|
|
(86,319) |
|
Loss before income tax expense |
|
|
(125,958) |
|
|
(112,612) |
|
|
— |
|
|
(238,570) |
|
Income tax expense |
|
|
(53) |
|
|
— |
|
|
— |
|
|
(53) |
|
Net loss |
|
|
(126,011) |
|
|
(112,612) |
|
|
— |
|
|
(238,623) |
|
Net loss attributable to noncontrolling interest |
|
|
— |
|
|
39,211 |
|
|
— |
|
|
39,211 |
|
Net loss attributable to Global Partners LP |
|
|
(126,011) |
|
|
(73,401) |
|
|
— |
|
|
(199,412) |
|
Less: General partners' interest in net loss, including incentive distribution rights |
|
|
(1,336) |
|
|
— |
|
|
— |
|
|
(1,336) |
|
Limited partners' interest in net loss |
|
$ |
(124,675) |
|
$ |
(73,401) |
|
$ |
— |
|
$ |
(198,076) |
|
F-76
Condensed Consolidating Statement of Operations
For the Year Ended December 31, 2015
(In thousands)
|
|
(Issuer) |
|
Non- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
Guarantor |
|
Guarantor |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
Subsidiaries |
|
Subsidiary |
|
Eliminations |
|
Consolidated |
|
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sales |
|
$ |
10,306,493 |
|
$ |
23,549 |
|
$ |
(15,190) |
|
$ |
10,314,852 |
|
Cost of sales |
|
|
9,722,340 |
|
|
10,033 |
|
|
(15,190) |
|
|
9,717,183 |
|
Gross profit |
|
|
584,153 |
|
|
13,516 |
|
|
— |
|
|
597,669 |
|
Costs and operating expenses: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Selling, general and administrative expenses |
|
|
174,925 |
|
|
2,118 |
|
|
— |
|
|
177,043 |
|
Operating expenses |
|
|
281,201 |
|
|
9,106 |
|
|
— |
|
|
290,307 |
|
Amortization expense |
|
|
10,467 |
|
|
3,032 |
|
|
— |
|
|
13,499 |
|
Net loss on sale and disposition of assets |
|
|
2,097 |
|
|
— |
|
|
— |
|
|
2,097 |
|
Total costs and operating expenses |
|
|
468,690 |
|
|
14,256 |
|
|
— |
|
|
482,946 |
|
Operating income (loss) |
|
|
115,463 |
|
|
(740) |
|
|
— |
|
|
114,723 |
|
Interest expense |
|
|
(73,324) |
|
|
(8) |
|
|
— |
|
|
(73,332) |
|
Income (loss) before income tax expense |
|
|
42,139 |
|
|
(748) |
|
|
— |
|
|
41,391 |
|
Income tax expense |
|
|
1,873 |
|
|
— |
|
|
— |
|
|
1,873 |
|
Net income (loss) |
|
|
44,012 |
|
|
(748) |
|
|
— |
|
|
43,264 |
|
Net loss attributable to noncontrolling interest |
|
|
— |
|
|
299 |
|
|
— |
|
|
299 |
|
Net income (loss) attributable to Global Partners LP |
|
|
44,012 |
|
|
(449) |
|
|
— |
|
|
43,563 |
|
Less: General partners' interest in net income, including incentive distribution rights |
|
|
7,667 |
|
|
— |
|
|
— |
|
|
7,667 |
|
Limited partners' interest in net income (loss) |
|
$ |
36,345 |
|
$ |
(449) |
|
$ |
— |
|
$ |
35,896 |
|
F-77
Condensed Consolidating Statement of Operations
For the Year Ended December 31, 2014
(In thousands)
|
|
(Issuer) |
|
Non- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
Guarantor |
|
Guarantor |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
Subsidiaries |
|
Subsidiaries |
|
Eliminations |
|
Consolidated |
|
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sales |
|
$ |
17,256,583 |
|
$ |
39,347 |
|
$ |
(25,976) |
|
$ |
17,269,954 |
|
Cost of sales |
|
|
16,743,163 |
|
|
7,980 |
|
|
(25,976) |
|
|
16,725,167 |
|
Gross profit |
|
|
513,420 |
|
|
31,367 |
|
|
— |
|
|
544,787 |
|
Costs and operating expenses: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Selling, general and administrative expenses |
|
|
150,964 |
|
|
2,997 |
|
|
— |
|
|
153,961 |
|
Operating expenses |
|
|
192,512 |
|
|
11,558 |
|
|
— |
|
|
204,070 |
|
Amortization expense |
|
|
7,846 |
|
|
11,021 |
|
|
— |
|
|
18,867 |
|
Net loss on sale and disposition of assets |
|
|
2,182 |
|
|
— |
|
|
— |
|
|
2,182 |
|
Total costs and operating expenses |
|
|
353,504 |
|
|
25,576 |
|
|
— |
|
|
379,080 |
|
Operating income |
|
|
159,916 |
|
|
5,791 |
|
|
— |
|
|
165,707 |
|
Interest expense |
|
|
(47,651) |
|
|
(113) |
|
|
— |
|
|
(47,764) |
|
Income before income tax expense |
|
|
112,265 |
|
|
5,678 |
|
|
— |
|
|
117,943 |
|
Income tax expense |
|
|
(963) |
|
|
— |
|
|
— |
|
|
(963) |
|
Net income |
|
|
111,302 |
|
|
5,678 |
|
|
— |
|
|
116,980 |
|
Net income attributable to noncontrolling interest |
|
|
— |
|
|
(2,271) |
|
|
— |
|
|
(2,271) |
|
Net income attributable to Global Partners LP |
|
|
111,302 |
|
|
3,407 |
|
|
— |
|
|
114,709 |
|
Less: General partners' interest in net income, including incentive distribution rights |
|
|
5,981 |
|
|
— |
|
|
— |
|
|
5,981 |
|
Limited partners' interest in net income |
|
$ |
105,321 |
|
$ |
3,407 |
|
$ |
— |
|
$ |
108,728 |
|
F-78
Condensed Consolidating Statement of Cash Flows
For the Year Ended December 31, 2016
(In thousands)
|
|
(Issuer) |
|
Non- |
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
Guarantor |
|
Guarantor |
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
Subsidiaries |
|
Subsidiary |
|
Consolidated |
|
|||
Cash flows from operating activities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash (used in) provided by operating activities |
|
$ |
(120,338) |
|
$ |
452 |
|
$ |
(119,886) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash flows from investing activities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Capital expenditures |
|
|
(71,279) |
|
|
— |
|
|
(71,279) |
|
Proceeds from sale of property and equipment |
|
|
77,718 |
|
|
8 |
|
|
77,726 |
|
Net cash provided by investing activities |
|
|
6,439 |
|
|
8 |
|
|
6,447 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash flows from financing activities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net borrowings from working capital revolving credit facility |
|
|
176,500 |
|
|
— |
|
|
176,500 |
|
Net payments on revolving credit facility |
|
|
(52,300) |
|
|
— |
|
|
(52,300) |
|
Proceeds from sale-leaseback, net |
|
|
62,469 |
|
|
— |
|
|
62,469 |
|
Distribution to noncontrolling interest |
|
|
2,697 |
|
|
(4,495) |
|
|
(1,798) |
|
Distributions to partners |
|
|
(62,520) |
|
|
— |
|
|
(62,520) |
|
Net cash provided by (used in) financing activities |
|
|
126,846 |
|
|
(4,495) |
|
|
122,351 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Increase (decrease) in cash and cash equivalents |
|
|
12,947 |
|
|
(4,035) |
|
|
8,912 |
|
Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of year |
|
|
(3,574) |
|
|
4,690 |
|
|
1,116 |
|
Cash and cash equivalents at end of year |
|
$ |
9,373 |
|
$ |
655 |
|
$ |
10,028 |
|
F-79
Condensed Consolidating Statement of Cash Flows
For the Year Ended December 31, 2015
(In thousands)
|
|
(Issuer) |
|
Non- |
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
Guarantor |
|
Guarantor |
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
Subsidiaries |
|
Subsidiary |
|
Consolidated |
|
|||
Cash flows from operating activities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash provided by operating activities |
|
$ |
50,309 |
|
$ |
12,197 |
|
$ |
62,506 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash flows from investing activities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Acquisitions |
|
|
(561,170) |
|
|
— |
|
|
(561,170) |
|
Capital expenditures |
|
|
(90,240) |
|
|
(2,685) |
|
|
(92,925) |
|
Proceeds from sale of property and equipment |
|
|
4,331 |
|
|
— |
|
|
4,331 |
|
Net cash used in investing activities |
|
|
(647,079) |
|
|
(2,685) |
|
|
(649,764) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash flows from financing activities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Proceeds from issuance of common units, net |
|
|
109,305 |
|
|
— |
|
|
109,305 |
|
Net borrowings from working capital revolving credit facility |
|
|
148,100 |
|
|
— |
|
|
148,100 |
|
Net borrowings from revolving credit facility |
|
|
135,200 |
|
|
— |
|
|
135,200 |
|
Proceeds from senior notes, net of discount |
|
|
295,338 |
|
|
— |
|
|
295,338 |
|
Payments on line of credit |
|
|
— |
|
|
(700) |
|
|
(700) |
|
Repurchase of common units |
|
|
(3,892) |
|
|
— |
|
|
(3,892) |
|
Noncontrolling interest capital contribution |
|
|
9,360 |
|
|
(6,800) |
|
|
2,560 |
|
Distribution to noncontrolling interest |
|
|
(5,280) |
|
|
— |
|
|
(5,280) |
|
Distributions to partners |
|
|
(97,495) |
|
|
— |
|
|
(97,495) |
|
Net cash provided by (used in) financing activities |
|
|
590,636 |
|
|
(7,500) |
|
|
583,136 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(Decrease) increase in cash and cash equivalents |
|
|
(6,134) |
|
|
2,012 |
|
|
(4,122) |
|
Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of year |
|
|
2,560 |
|
|
2,678 |
|
|
5,238 |
|
Cash and cash equivalents at end of year |
|
$ |
(3,574) |
|
$ |
4,690 |
|
$ |
1,116 |
|
F-80
Condensed Consolidating Statement of Cash Flows
For the Year Ended December 31, 2014
(In thousands)
|
|
(Issuer) |
|
Non- |
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
Guarantor |
|
Guarantor |
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
Subsidiaries |
|
Subsidiary |
|
Consolidated |
|
|||
Cash flows from operating activities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash provided by operating activities |
|
$ |
321,319 |
|
$ |
23,583 |
|
$ |
344,902 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash flows from investing activities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Capital expenditures |
|
|
(78,863) |
|
|
(16,251) |
|
|
(95,114) |
|
Proceeds from sale of property and equipment |
|
|
4,021 |
|
|
— |
|
|
4,021 |
|
Net cash used in investing activities |
|
|
(74,842) |
|
|
(16,251) |
|
|
(91,093) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash flows from financing activities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Proceeds from issuance of common units, net |
|
|
137,844 |
|
|
— |
|
|
137,844 |
|
Net payments on working capital revolving credit facility |
|
|
(227,000) |
|
|
— |
|
|
(227,000) |
|
Net payments on revolving credit facility |
|
|
(300,900) |
|
|
— |
|
|
(300,900) |
|
Proceeds from senior notes, net of discount |
|
|
258,903 |
|
|
— |
|
|
258,903 |
|
Repayment of senior notes |
|
|
(40,244) |
|
|
— |
|
|
(40,244) |
|
Payments on line of credit |
|
|
— |
|
|
(3,000) |
|
|
(3,000) |
|
Repurchase of common units |
|
|
(8,632) |
|
|
— |
|
|
(8,632) |
|
Noncontrolling interest capital contribution |
|
|
10,700 |
|
|
(2,500) |
|
|
8,200 |
|
Distribution to noncontrolling interest |
|
|
(9,200) |
|
|
— |
|
|
(9,200) |
|
Distributions to partners |
|
|
(73,759) |
|
|
— |
|
|
(73,759) |
|
Net cash used in financing activities |
|
|
(252,288) |
|
|
(5,500) |
|
|
(257,788) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Decrease (increase) in cash and cash equivalents |
|
|
(5,811) |
|
|
1,832 |
|
|
(3,979) |
|
Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of year |
|
|
8,371 |
|
|
846 |
|
|
9,217 |
|
Cash and cash equivalents at end of year |
|
$ |
2,560 |
|
$ |
2,678 |
|
$ |
5,238 |
|
F-81
Item 15(a)
SCHEDULE II—VALUATION AND QUALIFYING ACCOUNTS
GLOBAL PARTNERS LP
FOR THE YEARS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2016, 2015 and 2014
(In thousands)
|
|
Balance at |
|
Charged to |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance |
|
|||
|
|
Beginning |
|
Costs and |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other |
|
at End |
|
||||
Description |
|
of Period |
|
Expenses |
|
Recoveries |
|
Write Offs |
|
Adjustment |
|
of Period |
|
||||||
Year ended December 31, 2016 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Allowance for doubtful accounts—accounts receivable |
|
$ |
5,942 |
|
$ |
231 |
|
$ |
23 |
|
$ |
(785) |
|
$ |
138 |
|
$ |
5,549 |
|
Year ended December 31, 2015 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Allowance for doubtful accounts—accounts receivable |
|
$ |
4,818 |
|
$ |
1,303 |
|
$ |
42 |
|
$ |
(1,297) |
|
$ |
1,076 |
|
$ |
5,942 |
|
Year ended December 31, 2014 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Allowance for doubtful accounts—accounts receivable |
|
$ |
7,513 |
|
$ |
1,700 |
|
$ |
277 |
|
$ |
(4,672) |
|
$ |
— |
|
$ |
4,818 |
|
F-82
INDEX TO EXHIBITS
Exhibit |
|
|
|
Description |
|
2.1** |
|
— |
|
Stock Purchase Agreement, dated as of October 3, 2014, by and among Warren Equities, Inc., as the Company, The Warren Alpert Foundation, as the Seller, and Global Montello Group Corp., as Buyer, and Solely with Respect to Section 10.20 and the Other Provisions in Article 10 Related Thereto, Global Partners LP, as Buyer Guarantor (incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 2.1 to the Current Report on Form 8‑K filed on October 9, 2014 (File No. 001‑32593)). |
|
2.2 |
|
— |
|
First Amendment to Stock Purchase Agreement dated as of December 12, 2014 by and among Warren Equities, Inc., as the Company, The Warren Alpert Foundation, as the Seller, and Global Montello Group Corp., as Buyer, and Global Partners LP, as Buyer Guarantor (incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 2.2 to the Current Report on Form 8‑K filed on January 13, 2015 (File No. 001‑32593)). |
|
2.3 |
|
— |
|
Second Amendment to Stock Purchase Agreement dated as of January 7, 2015 by and among Warren Equities, Inc., as the Company, The Warren Alpert Foundation, as the Seller, and Global Montello Group Corp., as Buyer, and Global Partners LP, as Buyer Guarantor (incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 2.3 to the Current Report on Form 8‑K filed on January 13, 2015 (File No. 001‑32593)). |
|
2.4** |
|
— |
|
Agreement of Purchase and Sale dated as of January 14, 2015 between Global Revco Dock, L.L.C, Global Revco Terminal, L.L.C., Global South Terminal, L.L.C., Global Petroleum Corp. and Global Companies LLC (incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 2.1 to the Current Report on Form 8‑K filed on January 21, 2015 (File No. 001‑32593)). |
|
2.5** |
|
— |
|
Sale And Purchase Agreement, dated as of April 9, 2015, by and among Liberty Petroleum Realty, LLC, East River Petroleum Realty, LLC, Big Apple Petroleum Realty, LLC, White Oak Petroleum, LLC, Anacostia Realty, LLC, Mount Vernon Petroleum Realty, LLC and DAG Realty, LLC, as Seller and Global Partners LP, as Buyer (incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 2.1 to the Current Report on Form 8-K filed on April 15, 2015). |
|
3.1 |
|
— |
|
Certificate of Limited Partnership of Global Partners LP (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 3.1 to the Registration Statement on Form S-1 filed on May 10, 2005). |
|
3.2 |
|
— |
|
Third Amended and Restated Agreement of Limited Partnership of Global Partners LP dated as of December 9, 2009 (incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 3.1 to the Current Report on Form 8‑K filed on December 15, 2009). |
|
4.1 |
|
— |
|
Registration Rights Agreement, dated March 1, 2012, by and among Global Partners LP and AE Holdings Corp. (incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 4.1 to the Current Report on Form 8‑K filed on March 7, 2012). |
|
4.2 |
— |
Indenture, dated as of February 14, 2013, by and among Global Partners LP and GLP Finance Corp., as Issuers, the Guarantors party thereto and FS Energy and Power Fund, as Purchaser (incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 4.1 to the Current Report on Form 8‑K filed on February 21, 2013). |
|||
4.3 |
|
— |
|
Indenture, dated as of December 23, 2013, by and among Global Partners LP and GLP Finance Corp., as Issuers, the Guarantors party thereto and FS Energy and Power Fund, KARBO, L.P., Kayne Anderson Capital Income Partners (QP), L.P., Kayne Anderson Income Partners, L.P., Kayne Anderson Infrastructure Income Fund, L.P., Kayne Anderson Non‑Traditional Investments, L.P., KANTI (QP), L.P. and Kayne Energy Credit Opportunities, L.P., as Purchasers (incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 4.1 to the Current Report on Form 8‑K filed on December 26, 2013). |
|
4.4 |
|
— |
|
Second Supplemental Indenture, dated as of December 20, 2013, by and among Global Partners LP, GLP Finance Corp., as Issuers, the Guarantors party thereto and FS Energy and Power Fund, as Purchaser (incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 4.2 to the Current Report on Form 8‑K filed on December 26, 2013). |
|
4.5 |
|
— |
|
Supplemental Indenture—Subsidiary Guarantee, dated as of March 5, 2013, by and among Global Partners LP and GLP Finance Corp., as Issuers and the Guarantors party thereto (incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 4.2 to the Quarterly Report on Form 10‑Q filed on May 9, 2014). |
|
4.6 |
|
— |
|
Indenture, dated as of June 24, 2014, among the Issuers, the Guarantors, and Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, as trustee (incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 4.1 to the Current Report on Form 8‑K filed on June 25, 2014). |
|
4.7 |
|
— |
|
Indenture, dated as of June 4, 2015, among the Issuers, the Guarantors, and Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, as trustee (incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 4.1 to the Current Report on Form 8-K filed on June 4, 2015). |
|
10.1 |
|
— |
|
Omnibus Agreement, dated October 4, 2005, by and among Global Petroleum Corp., Montello Oil Corporation, Global Revco Dock, L.L.C., Global Revco Terminal, L.L.C., Global South Terminal, L.L.C., Sandwich Terminal, L.L.C., Chelsea Terminal Limited Partnership, Global GP LLC, Global Partners LP, Global Operating LLC, Alfred A. Slifka, Richard Slifka and Eric Slifka (incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 10.1 to the Current Report on Form 8‑K filed on October 11, 2005). |
|
10.2 |
|
— |
|
Amended and Restated Services Agreement, dated October 4, 2005, by and among Global Petroleum Corp., Global Companies LLC, Global Montello Group LLC, and Chelsea Sandwich LLC (incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 10.3 to the Current Report on Form 8‑K filed on October 11, 2005). |
|
10.3 |
|
— |
|
Terminals Sale and Purchase Agreement, dated March 16, 2007 by and between Global Partners LP and ExxonMobil Oil Corporation (incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 10.1 to the Quarterly Report on Form 10‑Q filed on August 9, 2007). |
|
10.4 |
|
— |
|
Terminals Sale and Purchase Agreement, dated July 9, 2007 by and between Global Partners LP and ExxonMobil Oil Corporation (incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 10.21 to the Annual Report on Form 10‑K filed on March 14, 2008). |
|
10.5^ |
|
— |
|
Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan dated December 31, 2009, between Global GP LLC and Edward J. Faneuil (incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 10.1 to the Current Report on Form 8‑K filed on January 7, 2010). |
|
10.6 |
|
— |
|
Sale and Purchase Agreement, dated May 24, 2010 among ExxonMobil Oil Corporation and Exxon Mobil Corporation, as sellers, and Global Companies LLC (incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 10.4 to the Quarterly Report on Form 10‑Q filed on August 6, 2010). |
|
10.7 |
|
— |
|
First Amendment to Sale and Purchase Agreement, effective August 12, 2010 among ExxonMobil Oil Corporation and Exxon Mobil Corporation, as sellers, and Global Companies LLC (incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 10.1 to the Current Report on Form 8‑K filed on August 31, 2010). |
|
10.8 |
|
— |
|
Second Amendment to Sale and Purchase Agreement, dated September 7, 2010, among ExxonMobil Oil Corporation and Exxon Mobil Corporation, as sellers, and Global Companies LLC, as buyer (incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 10.1 to the Current Report on Form 8‑K filed on September 9, 2010). |
|
10.9†† |
|
— |
|
Brand Fee Agreement, dated September 3, 2010, between ExxonMobil Oil Corporation and Global Companies LLC (incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 10.6 to the Quarterly Report on Form 10‑Q/A filed on January 20, 2011). |
|
10.10 |
|
— |
|
Assignment of Branded Wholesaler PMPA Franchise Agreements, effective March 1, 2011 between Global Companies LLC, Alliance Energy LLC and ExxonMobil Oil Corporation (incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 10.49 to the Annual Report on Form 10‑K filed on March 11, 2011). |
|
10.11 |
|
— |
|
Business Opportunity Agreement dated March 1, 2012, by and among Alfred A. Slifka, Richard Slifka and Global Partners LP (incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 10.1 to the Current Report on Form 8‑K filed on March 7, 2012). |
|
10.12^ |
|
— |
|
Deferred Compensation Agreement dated September 23, 2009, by and between Alliance Energy LLC and Edward J. Faneuil (incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 10.53 to the Annual Report on Form 10‑K filed on March 12, 2012). |
|
10.13 |
|
— |
|
First Amendment to Amended and Restated Services Agreement, dated as of July 24, 2006, by and among Global Petroleum Corp., Global Companies LLC, Global Montello Group Corp. and Chelsea Sandwich LLC (incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 10.1 to the Current Report on Form 8‑K filed on March 15, 2012). |
|
10.14 |
|
— |
|
Second Amendment to Amended and Restated Services Agreement, dated March 9, 2012, by and among Global Petroleum Corp., Global Companies LLC, Global Montello Group Corp., Chelsea Sandwich LLC and Alliance Energy LLC (incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 10.2 to the Current Report on Form 8‑K filed on March 15, 2012). |
|
10.15^ |
|
— |
|
Global Partners LP Long‑Term Incentive Plan (As Amended and Restated Effective June 22, 2012) (incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 10.1 to the Current Report on Form 8‑K filed on June 25, 2012). |
|
10.16^ |
|
— |
|
Form of Phantom Unit Award Agreement for Employees under Global Partners LP Long‑Term Incentive Plan (incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 10.1 to the Current Report on Form 8‑K filed on July 3, 2013). |
|
10.17^ |
|
— |
|
Form of Phantom Unit Award Agreement for Directors under Global Partners LP Long‑Term Incentive Plan (incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 10.2 to the Current Report on Form 8‑K filed on July 3, 2013). |
|
10.18^ |
|
— |
|
Executive Change of Control Agreement, effective July 1, 2013, by and between Global GP LLC and Charles A. Rudinsky (incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 10.5 to the Current Report on Form 8‑K filed on July 3, 2013). |
|
10.19^ |
|
— |
|
Form of Confidentiality, Non‑Solicitation, and Non‑Competition Agreement for Phantom Unit Award Recipients (incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 10.6 to the Current Report on Form 8‑K filed on July 3, 2013). |
|
10.20 |
|
— |
|
Note Purchase Agreement, dated as of December 23, 2013, by and among Global Partners LP and GLP Finance Corp., as Issuers, and FS Energy and Power Fund, KARBO, L.P., Kayne Anderson Capital Income Partners (QP), L.P., Kayne Anderson Income Partners, L.P., Kayne Anderson Infrastructure Income Fund, L.P., Kayne Anderson Non‑ Traditional Investments, L.P., KANTI (QP), L.P. and Kayne Energy Credit Opportunities, L.P., as Purchasers (incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 10.1 to the Current Report on Form 8‑K filed on December 26, 2013). |
|
10.21†† |
|
— |
|
Second Amended and Restated Credit Agreement, dated as of December 16, 2013, among Global Operating LLC, Global Companies LLC, Global Montello Group Corp., Glen Hes Corp., Chelsea Sandwich LLC, GLP Finance Corp., Global Energy Marketing LLC, Global Energy Marketing II LLC, Global CNG LLC, Alliance Energy LLC and Cascade Kelly Holdings LLC as borrowers, Bank of America, N.A., as Administrative Agent, Swing Line Lender, Alternative Currency Fronting Lender and L/C Issuer, JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. as Co‑Syndication Agents, RBS Citizens NA, Societe Generale and Standard Chartered Bank as Co‑Documentation Agents, and Banc of America Merrill Lynch, JP Morgan Securities Inc. and Wells Fargo Securities, LLC as Joint Lead Arrangers and Joint Book Managers (incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 10.52 to the Annual Report on Form 10‑K filed on April 1, 2014). |
|
10.22 |
|
— |
|
Purchase Agreement, dated June 19, 2014 among the Issuers, the Guarantors and the Initial Purchasers (incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 10.1 to the Current Report on Form 8‑K filed on June 25, 2014). |
|
10.23 |
|
— |
|
Exchange Rights Agreement, dated June 19, 2014 by and among Global Partners LP, GLP Finance Corp. and FS Energy and Power Fund (incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 10.2 to the Current Report on Form 8‑K filed on June 25, 2014). |
|
10.24 |
|
— |
|
Exchange Rights Agreement, dated June 19, 2014 by and among Global Partners LP. GLP Finance Corp., FS Energy and Power Fund, Kayne Anderson Non‑Traditional Investments, L.P., Kanti (QP), L.P., Kayne Anderson Capital Income Partners (QP), L.P., Kayne Anderson Income Partners, L.P., Kayne Anderson Infrastructure Income Fund, L.P., Kayne Energy Credit Opportunities, L.P. and Karbo L.P. (incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 10.3 to the Current Report on Form 8‑K filed on June 25, 2014). |
|
10.25 |
|
— |
|
First Amendment to Second Amended and Restated Credit Agreement dated October 6, 2014 (incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 10.1 to the Current Report on Form 8‑K filed on October 9, 2014). |
|
10.26 |
|
— |
|
Second Amendment to Second Amended and Restated Credit Agreement dated October 20, 2014 (incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 10.1 to the Current Report on Form 8‑K filed on October 24, 2014). |
|
10.27^ |
|
— |
|
Employment Agreement dated December 31, 2014, by and between Global GP LLC and Eric S. Slifka (incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 10.1 to the Current Report on Form 8‑K filed on January 7, 2015). |
|
10.28^ |
|
— |
|
Employment Agreement dated December 31, 2014, by and between Global GP LLC and Edward J. Faneuil (incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 10.2 to the Current Report on Form 8‑K filed on January 7, 2015). |
|
10.29^ |
|
— |
|
Employment Agreement by and between Global GP LLC and Andrew P. Slifka, dated as of January 22, 2015 (incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 10.45 to the Annual Report on Form 10‑K filed on March 13, 2015). |
|
10.30^ |
|
— |
|
Form of Director Unit Award Letter (incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 10.46 to the Annual Report on Form 10‑K filed on March 13, 2015). |
|
10.31 |
|
— |
|
Second Amended and Restated Services Agreement, dated as of March 11, 2015, by and among Global Petroleum Corp. and Global Companies LLC (incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 10.49 to the Annual Report on Form 10‑K filed on March 13, 2015). |
|
10.32 |
|
— |
|
Third Amendment to Second Amended and Restated Credit Agreement dated April 27, 2015 (incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 10.1 to the Current Report on Form 8‑K filed on April 30, 2015). |
|
10.33 |
|
— |
|
Purchase Agreement, dated June 1, 2015 among the Issuers, the Guarantors and the Initial Purchasers (incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 10.1 to the Current Report on Form 8‑K filed on June 4, 2015). |
|
10.34^ |
|
— |
|
Form of Restricted Unit Award Grant Letter (incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 10.2 to the Quarterly Report on Form 10‑Q filed on August 7, 2015). |
|
10.35^ |
|
— |
|
Form of Cash Award Grant Letter (incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 10.3 to the Quarterly Report on Form 10‑Q filed on August 7, 2015). |
|
10.36^ |
|
— |
|
Form of Canadian Grant Agreement (incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 10.4 to the Quarterly Report on Form 10‑Q filed on August 7, 2015). |
|
10.37^ |
|
— |
|
Form of Phantom Unit Agreement (Cash Settlement) (incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 10.1 to the Quarterly Report on Form 10‑Q filed on November 6, 2015). |
|
10.38^ |
|
— |
|
Employment Agreement dated November 1, 2015, by and between Global GP LLC and Daphne H. Foster (incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 10.1 to the Current Report on Form 8‑K filed on November 10, 2015). |
|
10.39^ |
|
— |
|
Employment Agreement dated November 1, 2015, by and between Global GP LLC and Mark Romaine (incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 10.2 to the Current Report on Form 8‑K filed on November 10, 2015). |
|
10.40 |
|
— |
|
Fourth Amendment to Second Amended and Restated Credit Agreement dated December 18, 2015 (incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 10.46 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K filed on February 29, 2016). |
|
10.41 |
|
— |
|
Fifth Amendment to Second Amended and Restated Credit Agreement dated February 24, 2016 (incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 10.47 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K filed on February 29, 2016). |
|
10.42 |
|
— |
|
Sixth Amendment to Second Amended and Restated Credit Agreement dated October 26, 2016 (incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 10.1 to the Quarterly Report on Form 10‑Q filed on November 7, 2016). |
|
10.43 |
|
— |
|
Seventh Amendment to Second Amended and Restated Credit Agreement dated December 21, 2016 (incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 10.1 to the Current Report on Form 8‑K filed on December 22, 2016). |
|
21.1* |
|
— |
|
List of Subsidiaries of Global Partners LP. |
|
23.1* |
|
— |
|
Consent of Ernst & Young LLP. |
|
31.1* |
|
— |
|
Rule 13a‑14(a)/15d‑14(a) Certification of Principal Executive Officer of Global GP LLC, general partner of Global Partners LP. |
|
31.2* |
|
— |
|
Rule 13a‑14(a)/15d‑14(a) Certification of Principal Financial Officer of Global GP LLC, general partner of Global Partners LP. |
|
32.1† |
|
— |
|
Section 1350 Certification of Chief Executive Officer of Global GP LLC, general partner of Global Partners LP. |
|
32.2† |
|
— |
|
Section 1350 Certification of Chief Financial Officer of Global GP LLC, general partner of Global Partners LP. |
|
101.INS* |
|
— |
|
XBRL Instance Document. |
|
101.SCH* |
|
— |
|
XBRL Taxonomy Extension Schema Document. |
|
101.CAL* |
|
— |
|
XBRL Taxonomy Extension Calculation Linkbase Document. |
|
101.LAB* |
|
— |
|
XBRL Taxonomy Extension Labels Linkbase Document. |
|
101.PRE* |
|
— |
|
XBRL Taxonomy Extension Presentation Linkbase Document. |
|
101.DEF* |
|
— |
|
XBRL Taxonomy Extension Definition Linkbase Document. |
|
*Filed herewith.
^Management contract or compensatory plan or arrangement.
**Schedules and similar attachments have been omitted pursuant to Item 601(b)(2) of Regulation S‑K. The Partnership undertakes to furnish supplementally copies of any of the omitted schedules and exhibits upon request by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
†Not deemed “filed” for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 or otherwise subject to the liability of that section.
††Portions of this exhibit have been omitted pursuant to an order granting confidential treatment, dated May 9, 2014 (SEC File No. 001-32593).