ITEM 1A. RISK FACTORS
Our business, financial condition, results of operations and liquidity are subject to various risks and uncertainties, including those described below, and as a result, the trading price of our common stock could decline.
RISKS RELATED TO FEDERAL AND STATE INCENTIVES
RFS2: Loss or reductions of
federal governmental requirements for the use of biofuels could have a material adverse effect on our revenues and operating margins.
The biomass-based diesel industry relies substantially on federal requirements for use of biofuels. Since biomass-based diesel has been more expensive to produce than petroleum-based diesel fuel, the biomass-based diesel industry depends on governmental programs that support a market for biomass-based diesel that might not otherwise exist.
The most important of these government programs in the United States is RFS2, which requires annual consumption of specified volumes of biomass-based diesel fuel, including biodiesel and renewable hydrocarbon diesel. RFS2 became effective on July 1, 2010 and applies through 2022. Under RFS2, the EPA is required to determine the annual consumption volumes based on the EPA’s consideration of a variety of factors. The annual consumption volume requirements must be at least one billion gallons. The minimum volume requirement for 2013 was 1.28 billion gallons. On November 30, 2015, the EPA released final RFS targets for biomass based diesel of 1.63 billion gallons for 2014, 1.73 billion gallons for 2015, 1.90 billion gallons for 2016 and 2.00 billion gallons for 2017. We believe that much of the increase in demand for our biomass-based diesel since July 2010 is attributable to, and accelerated by, the existence and implementation of RFS2. In addition, we believe that biomass-based diesel prices since July 2010 have received significant support from RFS2. The United States Congress could repeal, curtail or otherwise change, and the EPA could curtail or otherwise change, the RFS2 program in a manner adverse to us. The petroleum industry is generally opposed to RFS2 and is expected to continue to press for changes that eliminate or reduce its impact. We believe that state requirements and incentives for the use of biofuels increase demand for our biomass-based diesel within such states, but do not increase overall demand for biofuels in excess of RFS2 requirements. Rather, state requirements and tax incentives influence where petroleum refiners and petroleum fuel importers choose to consume the volume requirements established by the EPA under RFS2. Any repeal or reduction in the RFS2 requirements or reinterpretation of RFS2 resulting in our biomass-based diesel failing to qualify as a required fuel would materially decrease the demand for and price of our biomass-based diesel, which would materially and adversely harm our revenues and cash flows.
Loss of or reductions in tax incentives for biomass-based diesel production or consumption may have a material adverse effect on industry revenues and operating margins.
Federal
The biomass-based diesel industry has historically been substantially aided by federal and state tax incentives. Prior to RFS2, the biomass-based diesel industry relied principally on tax incentives to make the price of biomass-based diesel more cost competitive with the price of petroleum-based diesel fuel to the end user. The most significant tax incentive program has been the federal biodiesel mixture excise tax credit, referred to as the Biodiesel Tax Credit or BTC. The BTC provides a $1.00 refundable tax credit for each gallon of pure biomass-based fuel, or B100, blended with petroleum-based diesel fuel. The entity to first blend the fuels receives the credit. The BTC was established on January 1, 2005 and existed until it was allowed to lapse on January 1, 2010. Thereafter, the BTC was periodically reinstated by Congress both prospectively and retroactively, and then again allowed to lapse. For instance, Congress reinstated the BTC in December 2010, covering 2010 retroactively and 2011 prospectively, and allowed it to lapse at the end of 2011. On January 2, 2013, over a full year following its previous expiration, Congress again reinstated the BTC covering 2012 retroactively and 2013 prospectively. The credit lapsed a third time on January 1, 2014 and was reinstated almost one year later on December 19, 2014, covering only 2014 retroactively. Most recently, the credit was reinstated on December 18, 2015, covering 2015 retroactively and 2016 prospectively. There is no assurance that the BTC will be extended or, if it is allowed to lapse, be reinstated. In response to the regular lapsing and reinstatement of the BTC, the biomass-based diesel industry and its customers have adopted arrangements for sharing revenue generated from selling gallons of biomass-based diesel that benefit from the BTC. Unlike RFS2, the BTC has a direct effect on federal government spending and could be changed or eliminated as a result of changes in the federal budget policy. It is
uncertain what action, if any, Congress may take with respect to allowing the BTC to lapse or reinstate or extend the BTC, or whether such action would apply retroactively or prospectively.
If Congress does not extend or reinstate the credit, demand for our biomass-based diesel and the price we are able to charge for our product may be significantly reduced, harming revenues and profitability. In addition, uncertainty regarding the extension or reinstatement of the BTC has caused fluctuations in our operating results. For example, we experienced a reduction in gallons sold in the first quarter of 2012 following an industry-wide acceleration of gallons produced and sold in the fourth quarter of 2011, when the BTC was scheduled to expire on December 31, 2011. We believe reduced demand in the first quarters of 2014 and 2015 also resulted from the lapsing of the BTC at the end of 2013 and 2014, respectively.
State
Several states have enacted tax incentives for the use of biodiesel and/or biomass-based diesel. For example, we derive a significant portion of our revenues from operations in the State of Illinois, which offers an exemption from the generally applicable 6.25% sales tax for biodiesel blends at 11% biodiesel, or B11. Like the BTC, the Illinois tax incentive program, and the tax incentive programs of other states, could be changed as a result of state budget considerations or otherwise. Reduction or elimination of such incentives could materially and adversely harm our revenues and profitability.
Increased industry-wide production of biomass-based diesel, including as a result of existing excess production capacity, could harm our financial results.
If the volume of excess biomass-based diesel RINs exceeds the volume mandated for use under RFS2, the demand for and price of our biomass-based diesel, and biomass-based diesel RINs may be reduced, which could harm revenues and cash flows.
According to the National Biodiesel Board, or NBB, as of September 12, 2012, 2.7 billion gallons per year of biodiesel production capacity in the United States was registered under the RFS2 program by NBB members. In addition to this amount, several hundred million more gallons of U.S. based biomass-based diesel production capacity was registered by non-NBB members and another 1.2 billion gallons of biomass-based diesel production was registered by foreign producers. Furthermore, plants under construction and expansion in the United States as of December 31 2011, if completed, could add an additional several hundred million gallons of annual biodiesel production capacity. The annual production capacity of existing plants and plants under construction far exceeds both historic consumption of biomass-based diesel in the United States and required consumption under RFS2. If this excess production capacity was fully utilized for the U.S. market, it would increase competition for our feedstocks, increase the volume of biomass-based diesel on the market and may reduce biomass-based diesel gross margins, harming our revenues and profitability.
Increased biomass-based diesel production may result in the generation of RINs in excess of the volume of RINs mandated for consumption under RFS2. RIN prices can be expected to decrease as the calendar year progresses if the RIN market is oversupplied compared to that year’s RVO. For example, in 2012, which had a RVO for biomass-based diesel of one billion gallons, biomass-based diesel RIN prices, as reported by OPIS, began to decrease in September when biomass-based diesel RIN generation neared the equivalent of 900 million gallons, as reported by EMTS. Similarly, in September of 2013 when biomass-based diesel RIN generation reached approximately 960 million gallons compared to a 2013 biomass-based diesel RVO of 1.28 billion gallons, biomass-based diesel RIN prices, as reported by OPIS, began to decline.
RISKS RELATED TO OUR BUSINESS OPERATIONS AND THE MARKETS IN WHICH WE OPERATE
Our gross margins are dependent on the spread between biomass-based diesel prices and feedstock costs, each of which are volatile and can cause our results of operations to fluctuate substantially.
Biomass-based diesel has traditionally been marketed primarily as an additive or alternative to petroleum-based diesel fuel, and, as a result, biomass-based diesel prices have been influenced by the price of petroleum-based diesel fuel, adjusted for government incentives supporting renewable fuels, rather than biomass-based diesel production costs. A lack of close correlation between production costs and biomass-based diesel prices means that we may be unable to pass increased production costs on to our customers in the form of higher prices. Any decrease in the spread between biomass-based diesel prices and feedstock costs, whether as a result of an increase in feedstock prices or a reduction in biomass-based diesel prices, along with a reduction in the value of RINs, would adversely affect our gross margins, cash flow and results of operations.
Energy prices, particularly the market price for crude oil, started to rebound in the first half of 2016. However, they significantly decreased throughout 2015. The price we sold our biomass-based diesel also significantly decreased from an average of $3.62 per gallon in 2014 to $2.97 per gallon in 2015. The average selling price of our biomass-based diesel was
$3.22
per gallon in the first nine months of 2016. Petroleum prices are volatile due to global factors, such as the impact of
wars, political uprisings, new extraction technologies and techniques, OPEC production quotas, worldwide economic conditions, changes in refining capacity and natural disasters.
In addition, an element of the price of biomass-based diesel that we produce is the value of the associated RINs. While RINs prices, as reported by Oil Price Information Service, or OPIS were less volatile in the first three quarters of 2016 from a low of $0.70 in January to a high of $1.05 in July, there was a significant decline in RIN prices throughout 2015, with RIN prices starting the year at $0.92 per RIN, dipping below $0.40 per RIN in September 2015 and ending the year at $0.72 per RIN, as reported by OPIS. There was significant volatility in RIN prices during 2014, with a decline in the second and third quarters of 2014, and subsequent increase in the fourth quarter, finishing the year at its peak at $0.77 per RIN, as reported by OPIS. In 2013, RIN prices decreased sharply from $1.09 per RIN on July 1, 2013 to $0.35 per RIN on December 31, 2013. Reductions in RIN values, such as those experienced in 2015 and prior years, may have a material adverse effect on our revenues and profits as they directly reduce the price we are able to charge for our biomass-based diesel.
A decrease in the availability or an increase in the price, of feedstocks may have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and operating results. The price and availability of feedstocks and other raw materials may be influenced by general economic, market and regulatory factors. These factors include weather conditions, farming decisions, government policies and subsidies with respect to agriculture and international trade and global supply and demand. During periods when the BTC has lapsed, biomass-based diesel producers may elect to continue purchasing feedstock and producing biomass-based diesel at negative margins under the assumption the BTC will be retroactively reinstated, and consequently, the price of feedstock may not decrease to a level proportionate to current operating margins. The development of alternative fuels and renewable chemicals also puts pressure on feedstock supply and availability to the biomass-based diesel industry. If these emerging technologies compete with biomass-based diesel for feedstocks, are more profitable or have greater governmental support than biomass-based diesel does, then the biomass-based diesel industry may have difficulty in procuring feedstocks at economical prices.
At elevated feedstock price levels, certain feedstocks may be uneconomical to use, as we may be unable to pass feedstock cost increases on to our customers. In addition, we generally are unable to enter into forward contracts at fixed prices for some of our feedstocks, such as animal fat, because markets for these feedstocks are less developed.
Historically, the spread between biomass-based diesel prices and feedstock costs has varied significantly. Although actual yields vary depending on the feedstock quality, the average monthly spread between the price per gallon of 100% pure biodiesel, or B100, as reported by The Jacobsen Publishing Company, and the price per gallon for the amount of choice white grease, a common inedible animal fat used by us to make biomass-based diesel, was $1.26 in 2012, $1.61 in 2013, $0.92 in 2014, $1.09 in 2015 and $1.23 in the third quarter of 2016, assuming eight pounds of choice white grease yields one gallon of biomass-based diesel. The average monthly spread for the amount of crude soybean oil required to produce one gallon of biomass-based, based on the nearby futures contract as reported on the Chicago Board of Trade, was $0.65 in 2012, $1.19 in 2013, $0.65 in 2014, $0.58 in 2015 and $0.85 in the third quarter of 2016, assuming 7.5 pounds of soybean oil yields one gallon of biomass-based. From 2012-2015, approximately 85% of our annual total feedstock usage was inedible corn oil, used cooking oil or inedible animal fat, and approximately 15% was virgin vegetable oils.
Risk management transactions could significantly increase our operating costs and may not be effective.
In an attempt to partially offset the effects of volatile feedstock costs and biomass-based diesel fuel prices, we enter into contracts that establish market positions in feedstocks, such as inedible corn oil, used cooking oil, inedible animal fats and soybean oil, along with related commodities, such as heating oil and ultra-low sulfur diesel, or ULSD. The financial impact of such market positions depends on commodity prices at the time that we are required to perform our obligations under these contracts as well as the cumulative sum of the obligations we assume under these contracts.
Risk management activities can themselves result in losses when a position is purchased in a declining market or a position is sold in a rising market. Risk management arrangements expose us to the risk of financial loss in situations where the counterparty defaults on its contract or, in the case of exchange-traded or over-the-counter futures or options contracts, where there is a change in the expected differential between the underlying price in the contract and the actual prices paid or received by us. Changes in the value of these futures instruments are recognized in current income and may result in margin calls. We may also vary the amount of risk management strategies we undertake, or we may choose not to engage in risk management transactions at all. Our results of operation may be negatively impacted by our risk management transactions.
Our facilities and our customer’s facilities are subject to risks associated with fire, explosions and leaks, and other natural disasters which may disrupt our business and increase costs and liabilities.
Because biomass-based diesel and some of its inputs and outputs are combustible and/or flammable, a leak, fire or explosion may occur at a plant or customer’s facility which could result in damage to the plant and nearby properties, injury to
employees and others, and interruption of operations. For example, in April 2015 and again in September 2015, we experienced fires at our Geismar facility. In the April fire, two employees were injured; in the September fire, one employee and three contractors were injured. Our subsidiary has been named as defendant in lawsuits filed by contractors injured in the September fire and these suits allege that injuries resulted from, among other things, our negligence. We may be subject to additional litigation in connection with these incidents. In addition, on March 3, 2016 the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, or OSHA, issued a citation and notification of penalty regarding the September 2015 incident, citing three “willful” safety violations. We are currently working with OSHA to resolve or abate these citations.
As a result of the fires, our Geismar facility was shut down from April 2015 through early March 2016 while repairs and upgrades were completed. Our Geismar facility began start-up operations in early March 2016, although the plant did not achieve full capacity operation for a couple months due to variable sales opportunities and the start-up process. While we expect a significant portion of the costs associated with the Geismar fires will be covered by insurance, our insurance company may dispute coverage and we may be subject to costs and penalties that are not covered by insurance. Accordingly, as a result of these two incidents at the Geismar facility, we may incur significant additional costs, including potential liability for damages or injuries, legal expenses and loss of profit, which could seriously harm our results of operations and financial condition.
A majority of our facilities are also located in the Midwest, which is subject to tornado activity. Furthermore, REG Life Sciences' research and development center is in South San Francisco, California, which is subject to earthquakes. In addition, our Houston and Geismar facilities, due to their Gulf Coast location, are vulnerable to hurricanes and flooding, which may cause plant damage, injury to employees and others and interruption of operations. For example, in August 2016 we experienced reduced operating days at our Geismar facility as a result of local area flooding. Every one of our plants could incur damage from other natural disasters as well. If any of the foregoing events occur, we may incur significant additional costs including, among other things, loss of profits due to unplanned temporary or permanent shutdowns of our facilities, cleanup costs, liability for damages or injuries, legal expenses and reconstruction expenses, which would harm our results of operations and financial condition.
Our insurance may not protect us against our business and operating risks.
We maintain insurance for some, but not all, of the potential risks and liabilities associated with our business. For some risks, we may not obtain insurance if we believe the cost of available insurance is excessive relative to the risks presented. As a result of market conditions, premiums and deductibles for certain insurance policies can increase substantially and, in some instances, certain insurance policies may become unavailable or available only for reduced amounts of coverage. As a result, we may not be able to renew our existing insurance policies or procure other desirable insurance on commercially reasonable terms, if at all. Although we intend to maintain insurance at levels we believe are appropriate for our business and consistent with industry practice, we will not be fully insured against all risks. In addition, pollution, environmental risks and the risk of natural disasters generally are not fully insurable. Losses and liabilities from uninsured and underinsured events and delay in the payment of insurance proceeds could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.
One customer accounted for a meaningful percentage of revenues and a loss of this customer could have an adverse impact on our total revenues.
One customer, Pilot Travel Centers LLC, or Pilot, accounted for 8%, 18% and 16% of our revenues in 2015, 2014 and 2013, respectively. Our revenues from Pilot generally do not include the RINs associated with the gallons of biomass-based diesel sold to Pilot. The value of those RINs represented approximately an additional 13% of our total sales in 2015, based on the OPIS average RIN price for the year. In the event we lose Pilot as a customer or Pilot significantly reduces the volume of biomass-based diesel bought from us, it could be difficult to replace the lost revenues from biomass-based diesel and RINs, and our profitability and cash flow could be materially harmed. We do not have a long term contract with Pilot that ensures a continuing level of business from Pilot.
Our business is primarily dependent upon two similar products. As a consequence, we may not be able to adapt to changing market conditions or endure any decline in the biomass-based diesel industry.
Our revenues are currently generated almost entirely from the production and sale of biodiesel and renewable hydrocarbon diesel, collectively referred to as biomass-based diesel. Our reliance on biomass-based diesel means that we may not be able to adapt to changing market conditions or to withstand any significant decline in the size or profitability of the biomass-based diesel industry. In the beginning of 2015, we were required to periodically idle our plants due to insufficient demand at profitable price points. If we are required to idle our plants in the future or are unable to adapt to changing market conditions, our revenues and results of operations may be materially harmed.
Technological advances and changes in production methods in the biomass-based diesel industry and renewable chemical industry could render our plants obsolete and adversely affect our ability to compete.
It is expected that technological advances in biomass-based diesel production methods will continue to occur and new technologies for biomass-based diesel production may develop. Advances in the process of converting oils and fats into biodiesel and renewable hydrocarbon diesel could allow our competitors to produce biomass-based diesel faster and more efficiently and at a substantially lower cost. Additionally, we currently produce biomass-based diesel to conform to or exceed standards established by the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). ASTM standards for biomass-based diesel and biomass-based diesel blends may be modified in response to new technologies from the industries involved with diesel fuel.
New standards or production technologies may require us to make additional capital investments in, or modify, plant operations to meet these standards. If we are unable to adapt or incorporate technological advances into our operations, our production facilities could become less competitive or obsolete. Further, it may be necessary for us to make significant expenditures to acquire any new technology and retrofit our plants in order to incorporate new technologies and remain competitive. In order to execute our strategy to expand into the production of renewable chemicals, additional advanced biofuels, next generation feedstocks and related renewable products, we may need to acquire licenses or other rights to technology from third parties. We can provide no assurance that we will be able to obtain such licenses or rights on favorable terms. If we are unable to obtain, implement or finance new technologies, our production facilities could be less efficient than our competitors, and our ability to sell biomass-based diesel may be harmed, negatively impacting our revenues and profitability.
Our intellectual property is integral to our business. If we are unable to protect our intellectual property, or others assert that our operations violate their intellectual property, our business could be adversely affected.
Our success depends in part upon our ability to protect and prevent others from using our intellectual property. Failure to obtain or maintain adequate intellectual property protection could adversely affect our competitive business position. We rely on a combination of intellectual property rights, including patents, copyrights, trademarks and trade secrets in the United States and in select foreign countries. Effective patent, copyright, trademark and trade secret protection may be unavailable, limited or not applied for in some countries.
We rely in part on trade secret protection to protect our confidential and proprietary information and processes. However, trade secrets are difficult to protect. We have taken measures to protect our trade secrets and proprietary information, but these measures may not be effective. For example, we require new employees and consultants to execute confidentiality agreements upon the commencement of their employment or consulting arrangement with us. These agreements generally require that all confidential information developed by the individual or made known to the individual by us during the course of the individual’s relationship with us be kept confidential and not disclosed to third parties. These agreements also generally provide that knowhow and inventions conceived by the individual in the course of rendering services to us are our exclusive property. Nevertheless, these agreements may be breached, or may not be enforceable, and our proprietary information may be disclosed. Despite the existence of these agreements, third parties may independently develop substantially equivalent proprietary information and techniques.
It may be difficult for us to protect and enforce our intellectual property. Costly and time-consuming litigation could be necessary to enforce and determine the scope of our proprietary rights. If we pursue litigation to assert our intellectual property rights, an adverse judicial decision in any legal action could limit our ability to assert our intellectual property rights, limit our ability to develop new products, limit the value of our technology or otherwise negatively impact our business, financial condition and results of operations.
A competitor could seek to enforce intellectual property claims against us. Defending intellectual property rights claims asserted against us, regardless of merit, could be time-consuming, expensive to litigate or settle, divert management resources and attention and force us to acquire intellectual property rights and licenses, which may involve substantial royalty payments. Further, a party making such a claim, if successful, could secure a judgment that requires us to pay substantial damages.
Increases in our transportation costs or disruptions in our transportation services could have a material adverse effect on our business.
Our business depends on transportation services to deliver raw materials to us and finished products to our customers. The costs of these transportation services are affected by the volatility in fuel prices or other factors. For example, in 2012, the market rates of leasing new rail cars nearly doubled as a result of increased demand to move domestically drilled crude oil from new supply fields in the upper Midwest to various refineries. We have not been able in the past, and may not be able in the future, to pass along part or all of any of these price increases to customers. If we continue to be unable to increase our prices as
a result of increased fuel costs charged to us by transportation providers, our gross margins may be materially adversely affected.
If any transportation providers fail to deliver raw materials to us in a timely manner, we may be unable to manufacture products on a timely basis. Shipments of products and raw materials may be delayed due to weather conditions, strikes or other events. Any failure of a third-party transportation provider to deliver raw materials or products in a timely manner could harm our reputation, negatively affect our customer relationships and have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.
We are dependent upon our key management personnel and other personnel whereby the loss of any of these persons could adversely affect our results of operations.
Our success depends on the abilities, expertise, judgment, discretion, integrity and good faith of our management and employees to manage the business and respond to economic, market and other conditions. We are highly dependent upon key members of our relatively small management team and employee base that possess unique technical skills for the execution of our business plan. There can be no assurance that any individual will continue in his or her capacity for any particular period of time or that replacement personnel with comparable skills could be found. The inability to retain our management team and employee base or attract suitably qualified replacements and additional staff could adversely affect our business. The loss of employees could delay or prevent the achievement of our business objectives and have a material adverse effect upon our results of operations and financial position.
We have not generated any significant revenue from sales of renewable chemicals to date and we expect to incur additional costs and face significant challenges to develop this business.
In January 2014 we entered the market for renewable chemicals through our acquisition of a proprietary microbial fermentation technology and related assets. To date, we have incurred significant research and development costs and have not generated any significant revenues from this business which remains largely at a pre-commercial stage. In addition, in order to generate revenue from our renewable chemical products that we may develop, we must be able to produce sufficient quantities of those products. Accordingly, we would need to partner with a third party fermentation facility, or purchase or construct a production facility, which would involve a significant capital expenditure by us.
In entering this market, we intend to sell renewable chemicals as an alternative to chemicals currently in use, and in some cases the chemicals that we seek to replace have been used for many years. The potential customers for our renewable chemical products generally have well developed manufacturing processes and arrangements with suppliers of the chemical components of their products and may resist changing these processes and components. These potential customers frequently impose lengthy and complex product qualification procedures on their suppliers. Factors that these potential customers consider during the product qualification process include consumer preference, manufacturing considerations such as process changes and capital, other costs associated with transitioning to alternative components, supplier operating history, regulatory issues, product liability and other factors, many of which are unknown to, or not well understood by, us. Some of our products may also require regulatory registrations and approvals from governmental authorities. The requirements for obtaining regulatory registrations and approvals may change or may take longer than we anticipate. Satisfying these processes may take many months or years.
If we are unable to convince these potential customers that our products are comparable to the chemicals that they currently use, or that the use of our products produce benefits to them, we will not be successful in these markets and our business will be adversely affected. Additionally, in contrast to the tax incentives relating to biofuels, tax credits and subsidies are not currently available in the United States for consumer products or chemical companies who use renewable chemical products. We do not expect meaningful revenue from our sale of renewable chemicals in the near term.
We may encounter difficulties in effectively integrating the businesses we acquire, including our international businesses where we have limited operating history.
We may face significant challenges in effectively integrating entities and businesses that we acquire, including our acquisition of the majority interest in Petrotec, a German biodiesel producer, in December 2014 along with our acquisitions of substantially all the assets of Imperium in August 2015 and certain biomass-based diesel production assets of Sanimax Energy in March 2016. We may not realize the benefits anticipated from such acquisitions. Achieving the anticipated benefits of our acquired businesses will depend in part upon whether we can integrate our businesses in an efficient and effective manner. Our integration of acquired businesses involves a number of risks, including:
|
|
•
|
difficulty in integrating the operations and personnel of the acquired company;
|
|
|
•
|
difficulty in effectively integrating the acquired technologies, products or services with our current technologies, products or services;
|
|
|
•
|
demands on management related to the increase in our size after the acquisition;
|
|
|
•
|
the diversion of management’s attention from daily operations to the integration of acquired businesses and personnel;
|
|
|
•
|
failure to achieve expected synergies and costs savings;
|
|
|
•
|
difficulties in the assimilation and retention of employees;
|
|
|
•
|
difficulties in the assimilation of different cultures and practices, as well as in the assimilation of broad and geographically dispersed personnel and operations;
|
|
|
•
|
difficulties in the integration of departments, systems, including accounting systems, technologies, books and records and procedures, as well as in maintaining uniform standards and controls, including internal control over financial reporting, and related procedures and policies;
|
|
|
•
|
incurring acquisition-related costs or amortization costs for acquired intangible assets that could impact our operating results;
|
|
|
•
|
the need to fund significant working capital requirements of any acquired production facilities;
|
|
|
•
|
potential failure of the due diligence processes to identify significant problems, liabilities or other shortcomings or challenges of an acquired company or technology, including but not limited to, issues with the acquired company’s intellectual property, product quality, environmental liabilities, data back-up and security, revenue recognition or other accounting practices, employee, customer or partner issues or legal and financial contingencies;
|
|
|
•
|
e
xposure to litigation or other claims in connection with, or inheritance of claims or litigation risk as a result of, an acquisition, including but not limited to, claims from terminated employees, customers, former stockholders or other third parties;
|
|
|
•
|
incurring significant exit charges if products or services acquired in business combinations are unsuccessful; and
|
|
|
•
|
if we are unable to complete the tender offer, our ability to control the operations of Petrotec may be limited.
|
Our ability to recognize the benefit of our investment in Petrotec, or any other international operations we invest in, will require the attention of management and is subject to a number of risks. We have no experience operating a biorefinery outside of the United States. The biodiesel market in Europe benefits from regulations that encourage the use of biodiesel. These regulations are subject to political and public opinion and may be changed. In addition, expanding our operations internationally subjects us to the following risks:
|
|
•
|
recruiting and retaining talented and capable management and employees in foreign countries;
|
|
|
•
|
challenges caused by distance, language and cultural differences;
|
|
|
•
|
protecting and enforcing our intellectual property rights;
|
|
|
•
|
difficulties in the assimilation and retention of employees;
|
|
|
•
|
the inability to extend proprietary rights in our technology into new jurisdictions;
|
|
|
•
|
currency exchange rate fluctuations;
|
|
|
•
|
general economic and political conditions in foreign jurisdictions;
|
|
|
•
|
foreign tax consequences;
|
|
|
•
|
foreign exchange controls or U.S. tax restrictions that might restrict or prevent us from repatriating income earned in countries outside the United States;
|
|
|
•
|
political, economic and social instability;
|
|
|
•
|
higher costs associated with doing business internationally; and
|
|
|
•
|
export or import regulations as well as trade and tariff restrictions.
|
Our failure to successfully manage and integrate our acquisitions could have an adverse effect on our operating results, ability to recognize international revenue, and our overall financial condition.
We may not successfully identify acquisitions, investment opportunities and other strategic relationships on favorable terms or be able to secure capital to pursue such opportunities.
We regularly review investment opportunities, including domestic and international acquisitions of biofuel production facilities, opportunities to develop our renewable chemicals business, expand, complete or enhance our biomass-based operations or acquire complementary businesses and technologies. We have acquired most of our facilities from third parties. However, we may be unable to identify suitable acquisition candidates in the future. Even if we identify appropriate acquisition candidates, we may be unable to complete such acquisitions on favorable terms, if at all.
We have three partially constructed plants, one near New Orleans, Louisiana, one in Emporia, Kansas and one in Clovis, New Mexico. There is also one non-operational plant near Atlanta, Georgia. The biomass-based facility near Atlanta, Georgia,
which had been idled prior to our acquisition will remain so pending certain repairs and upgrades. Our Clovis plant is currently being operated as a terminal facility.
While we intend to finance certain upgrades to our existing facilities from our cash flow from operations, we will need to raise significant capital to pursue investment opportunities, complete construction of the three partially constructed or non-operational facilities and to fund related working capital requirements. Accordingly, we may need to engage in equity or debt financing to secure additional funds. Any debt financing could involve restrictive covenants, which may restrict our flexibility in operating our business, including restrictions on the ability to make distributions, to guarantee indebtedness and to incur liens on the plants of such subsidiaries, thereby, making it more difficult for us to obtain additional capital and to pursue business opportunities, including potential acquisitions. We may not be able to obtain additional financing on terms favorable to us, if at all. If we are unable to obtain adequate financing on terms satisfactory to us, when we require it, our ability to continue to support our business growth and to respond to business challenges could be significantly limited, and our business, operating results, financial condition and prospects could be adversely affected.
We incur significant expenses to maintain and upgrade our operating equipment and plants, and any interruption in the operation of our facilities may harm our operating performance.
We regularly incur significant expenses to maintain and upgrade our equipment and facilities. The machines and equipment that we use to produce our products are complex, have many parts and some are run on a continuous basis. We must perform routine maintenance on our equipment and will have to periodically replace a variety of parts such as motors, pumps, pipes and electrical parts. In addition, our facilities require periodic shutdowns to perform major maintenance and upgrades. These scheduled shutdowns of facilities result in decreased sales and increased costs in the periods in which a shutdown occurs and could result in unexpected operational issues in future periods as a result of changes to equipment and operational and mechanical processes made during the shutdown period.
Growth in the sale and distribution of biomass-based diesel is dependent on the expansion of related infrastructure which may not occur on a timely basis, if at all, and our operations could be adversely affected by infrastructure limitations or disruptions.
Growth in the biomass-based diesel industry depends on substantial development of infrastructure for the distribution of biodiesel. Substantial investment required for these infrastructure changes and expansions may not be made on a timely basis or at all. The scope and timing of any infrastructure expansion are generally beyond our control. Also, we compete with other biofuel companies for access to some of the key infrastructure components such as pipeline and terminal capacity. As a result, increased production of biomass-based diesel will increase the demand and competition for necessary infrastructure. Any delay or failure in expanding distribution infrastructure could hurt the demand for or prices of biomass-based diesel, impede delivery of our biomass-based diesel, and impose additional costs, each of which would have a material adverse effect on our results of operations and financial condition. Our business will be dependent on the continuing availability of infrastructure for the distribution of increasing volumes of biomass-based diesel and any infrastructure disruptions could materially harm our business.
We operate in a highly competitive industry and competition in our industry would increase if new participants enter the biomass-based diesel business.
We operate in a very competitive environment. The biomass-based diesel industry is primarily comprised of smaller entities that engage exclusively in biodiesel production, large integrated agribusiness companies that produce biodiesel along with their soybean crush businesses and increasingly, integrated petroleum companies. We face competition for capital, labor, feedstocks and other resources from these companies. In the United States, we compete with soybean processors and refiners, including Archer-Daniels-Midland Company, Cargill, and Louis Dreyfus Commodities. In addition, petroleum refiners are increasingly entering into biomass-based diesel production. Such petroleum refiners includes Neste Oil with approximately 720 million gallons of global renewable hydrocarbon diesel production capacity in Asia and Europe and Valero Energy Corporation through its Diamond Green joint venture that operates an approximate 160 million gallon renewable hydrocarbon diesel plant. These and other competitors that are divisions of larger enterprises may have greater financial resources than we do.
Petroleum companies and diesel retailers form the primary distribution networks for marketing biomass-based diesel through blended petroleum-based diesel. If these companies increase their direct or indirect biomass-based diesel production, there will be less need to purchase biomass-based diesel from independent biomass-based diesel producers like us. Such a shift in the market would materially harm our operations, cash flows and financial position.
A volatile regulatory environment, lack of debt or equity investments and volatile biofuel prices and feedstock costs have likely contributed to the necessity of bankruptcy filings by biofuel producers. We may encounter new competition from
buyers of distressed biodiesel properties that enter the industry at a lower cost than original plant investors or from competitors consolidating or otherwise growing. Our business has been, and in the future may be, negatively impacted by the industry conditions that influenced the bankruptcy proceedings of other biofuel producers. Our business and prospects may be significantly and adversely affected if we are unable to similarly increase our scale.
We face competition from imported biodiesel and renewable hydrocarbon diesel, which may reduce demand for biomass-based diesel produced by us and cause our revenues and profits to decline.
Biodiesel and renewable hydrocarbon diesel imports into the United States have increased significantly and compete with biodiesel produced in the United States. The imported fuels may benefit from production incentives or other financial incentives in foreign countries that offset some of their production costs and enable importers to profitably sell biodiesel or renewable hydrocarbon diesel in the United States at lower prices than United States-based biodiesel producers. Under RFS2, imported biodiesel and renewable hydrocarbon diesel is eligible and, therefore, competes to meet the volumetric requirements for biomass-based diesel and advanced biofuels. If imports continue to increase, this could make it more challenging for us to market or sell biomass-based diesel in the United States, which would have a material adverse effect on our revenues. In January 2015, the EPA announced the approval for Argentinian biodiesel made from soybean oil to generate RINs. Imported biomass-based diesel that does not qualify under RFS2, also competes in jurisdictions where there are biomass-based diesel blending requirements.
Our business is subject to seasonal fluctuations, which are likely to cause our revenues and operating results to fluctuate.
Our operating results are influenced by seasonal fluctuations in the price of and demand for biodiesel. Seasonal fluctuations may be based on both the weather and the status of both the BTC and RVO obligations. Demand may be higher in the quarters leading up to the expiration of the BTC as customers seek to purchase biodiesel when they can benefit from the agreed upon value sharing of the BTC with producers of biodiesel. Seasonal fluctuation also occurs in the colder months when historically there has been reduced demand for biodiesel in northern and eastern United States markets, which are the primary markets in which we currently operate.
Biodiesel typically has a higher cloud point than petroleum-based diesel. The cloud point is the temperature below which a fuel exhibits a noticeable cloudiness and eventually gels, leading to fuel handling and performance problems for customers and suppliers. Reduced demand in the winter for our higher cloud point biodiesel may result in excess supply of such higher cloud point biodiesel and lower prices for such higher cloud point biodiesel. Most of our production facilities are located in colder Midwestern states and our costs of shipping biodiesel to warmer climates generally increase in cold weather months.
The tendency of biodiesel to gel in colder weather may also result in long-term storage problems. In cold climates, fuel may need to be stored in a heated building or heated storage tanks, which result in higher storage costs. Higher cloud point biodiesel may have other performance problems, including the possibility of particulate formation above the cloud point which may result in increased expenses as we try to remedy these performance problems, including the costs of extra cold weather treatment additives. Remedying these performance problems may result in decreased yields, lower process throughput or both, as well as substantial capital costs. Any reduction in the demand for our biodiesel product, or the production capacity of our facilities will reduce our revenues and have an adverse effect on our cash flows and results of operations.
Failure to comply with governmental regulations, including EPA requirements relating to RFS2 and FDA requirements relating to the Food Safety Modernization Act, could result in the imposition of penalties, fines, remedial liabilities or restrictions on our operations.
The biomass-based diesel industry is subject to extensive federal, state and local laws and regulations. Under certain environmental laws and regulations, we could be held strictly liable for the removal or remediation of previously released materials or property contamination regardless of whether we were responsible for the release or contamination, and regardless of whether current or prior operations were conducted consistent with accepted standards of practice. Many of our assets and plants were acquired from third parties and we may incur costs to remediate property contamination caused by previous owners. Compliance with these laws, regulations and obligations could require substantial capital expenditures. Failure to comply could result in the imposition of penalties, fines or restrictions on operations and remedial liabilities.
Changes in environmental laws and regulations occur frequently, and any changes that result in more stringent or costly waste handling, storage, transport, disposal or cleanup requirements could require us to make significant expenditures to attain and maintain compliance and may otherwise have a material adverse effect on our business in general and on our results of operations, competitive position or financial condition. We are unable to predict the effect of additional environmental laws and regulations which may be adopted in the future, including whether any such laws or regulations would significantly increase our cost of doing business or affect our operations in any area.
We are subject to various laws and regulations related to RFS2, most significantly regulations related to the generation and dissemination of RINs. These regulations are highly complex and continuously evolving, requiring us to periodically update our compliance systems. Recently, the EPA implemented a quality assurance program and regulations related to the generation and sale of biomass-based diesel RINs. Compliance with these or any new regulations or Obligated Party verification procedures could require significant expenditures to attain and maintain compliance. Any violation of these regulations by us, could result in significant fines and harm our customers’ confidence in the RINs we issue, either of which could have a material adverse effect on our business.
In response to the Food Safety Modernization Act, we may change certain processes at some of our plants, which may add to our cost of production, and may restrict the markets where we have traditionally sold some of the co-products of our biodiesel production process.
The development of alternative fuels and energy sources may reduce the demand for biodiesel, resulting in a reduction in our revenues and profitability.
The development of alternative fuels, including a variety of energy alternatives to biodiesel has attracted significant attention and investment. Neste Oil operates four renewable hydrocarbon diesel plants: a 300 million gallon per year plant in Singapore, a 300 million gallon per year plant in Rotterdam, Netherlands, and two 60 million gallon per year plants in Porvoo, Finland. In the United States, Diamond Green Diesel, LLC operates a 160 million gallon per year renewable hydrocarbon diesel plant in Norco, Louisiana in 2013. Under RFS2, renewable hydrocarbon diesel made from biomass meets the definition of biomass-based diesel and thus is eligible, along with biodiesel, to satisfy the RFS2 biomass-based diesel requirements. Furthermore, under RFS2, renewable hydrocarbon diesel may receive up to 1.7 RINs per gallon, whereas biodiesel currently receives 1.5 RINs per gallon. As the value of RINs increases, this 0.2 RIN advantage may make renewable hydrocarbon diesel more cost-effective, both as a petroleum-based diesel substitute and for meeting RFS2 requirements. If renewable hydrocarbon diesel proves to be more cost-effective than biodiesel, revenues from our biodiesel plants and our results of operations would be adversely impacted.
In addition, the EPA may allow other fuels to satisfy the RFS2 requirements and allow RINs to be generated upon the production of these fuels. The EPA recently adopted regulations to amend the definition of “Home Heating Oil” under RFS2, which expands the scope of fuels eligible to generate RINs.
The biomass-based diesel industry will also face increased competition resulting from the advancement of technology by automotive, industrial and power generation manufacturers which are developing more efficient engines, hybrid engines and alternative clean power systems. Improved engines and alternative clean power systems offer a technological solution to address increasing worldwide energy costs, the long-term availability of petroleum reserves and environmental concerns. If and when these clean power systems are able to offer significant efficiency and environmental benefits and become widely available, the biomass-based diesel industry may not be able to compete effectively with these technologies and government requirements for the use of biofuels may be discontinued.
If automobile manufacturers and other industry groups express reservations regarding the use of biodiesel, our ability to sell biodiesel will be negatively impacted.
Because it is a relatively new product compared with petroleum diesel, research on biodiesel use in automobiles is ongoing. While most heavy duty automobile manufacturers have approved blends of up to 20% biodiesel, some industry groups have recommended that blends of no more than 5% biodiesel be used for automobile fuel due to concerns about fuel quality, engine performance problems and possible detrimental effects of biodiesel on rubber components and other engine parts. Although some manufacturers have encouraged use of biodiesel fuel in their vehicles, cautionary pronouncements by other manufacturers or industry groups may impact our ability to market our biodiesel.
Perception about “food vs. fuel” could impact public policy which could impair our ability to operate at a profit and substantially harm our revenues and operating margins.
Some people believe that biomass-based diesel may increase the cost of food, as some feedstocks such as soybean oil used to make biomass-based diesel can also be used for food products. This debate is often referred to as “food vs. fuel.” This is a concern to the biomass-based diesel industry because biomass-based diesel demand is heavily influenced by government policy and if public opinion were to erode, it is possible that these policies would lose political support. These views could also negatively impact public perception of biomass-based diesel. Such claims have led some, including members of Congress, to urge the modification of current government policies which affect the production and sale of biofuels in the United States.
Concerns regarding the environmental impact of biomass-based diesel production could affect public policy which could impair our ability to operate at a profit and substantially harm our revenues and operating margins.
Under the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2017, or EISA, the EPA is required to produce a study every three years of the environmental impacts associated with current and future biofuel production and use, including effects on air and water quality, soil quality and conservation, water availability, energy recovery from secondary materials, ecosystem health and biodiversity, invasive species and international impacts. The first such triennial report was released in February 2012. The 2012 report concludes that (1) the extent of negative impacts to date are limited in magnitude and are primarily associated with the intensification of corn production; (2) whether future impacts are positive or negative will be determined by the choice of feedstock, land use change, cultivation and conservation practices; and (3) realizing potential benefits will require implementation and monitoring of conservation and best management practices, improvements in production efficiency, and implementation of innovative technologies at commercial scales. Should future EPA triennial studies, or other analyses find that biofuel production and use has resulted in, or could in the future result in, adverse environmental impacts, such findings could also negatively impact public perception and acceptance of biofuel as an alternative fuel, which also could result in the loss of political support. To the extent that state or federal laws are modified or public perception turns against biomass-based diesel, use requirements such as RFS2 and state tax incentives may not continue, which could materially harm our ability to operate profitably.
Nitrogen oxide emissions from biodiesel may harm its appeal as a renewable fuel and increase costs.
In some instances, biodiesel may increase emissions of nitrogen oxide as compared to petroleum-based diesel fuel, which could harm air quality. Nitrogen oxide is a contributor to ozone and smog. New technology diesel engines eliminate any such increase. Emissions from older vehicles while the fleet turns over may decrease the appeal of biodiesel to environmental groups and agencies who have been historic supporters of the biodiesel industry, potentially harming our ability to market our biodiesel.
In addition, several states may act to regulate potential nitrogen oxide emissions from biodiesel. California recently adopted regulations that may limit the volume of biodiesel that can be used or require an additive to reduce potential emissions. In states where such an additive is required to sell biodiesel, the additional cost of the additive may make biodiesel less profitable or make biodiesel less cost competitive against petroleum-based diesel or renewable hydrocarbon diesel, which would negatively impact our ability to sell our products in such states and therefore have an adverse effect on our revenues and profitability.
RISKS RELATED TO OUR INDEBTEDNESS
We and certain subsidiaries have indebtedness, which subjects us to potential defaults, that could adversely affect our ability to raise additional capital to fund our operations and limits our ability to react to changes in the economy or the biomass-based diesel industry.
At
September 30, 2016
, our total term debt before debt issuance costs was
$218.7 million
. This includes
$112.8 million
aggregate carrying value on our recently issued $152.0 million face amount, 4.00% convertible senior notes due in June 2036,
$66.6 million
aggregate carrying value on our $73.8 million face value, 2.75% convertible senior notes due in June 2019 that we issued in June 2014, which we refer to as the 2019 Convertible Notes. We also have short-term debt obligations under revolving credit agreements provided by certain banks. At
September 30, 2016
, there were
$6.4 million
of borrowings made under our revolving lines of credit, all of which we guarantee. See "Note 7 - Debt" to our Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements for a description of our indebtedness.
Our indebtedness could:
|
|
•
|
require us to dedicate a substantial portion of our cash flow from operations to payments of principal, interest on, and other fees related to such indebtedness, thereby reducing the availability of our cash flow to fund working capital and capital expenditures, and for other general corporate purposes;
|
|
|
•
|
increase our vulnerability to general adverse economic and biomass-based diesel industry conditions;
|
|
|
•
|
limit our flexibility in planning for, or reacting to, changes in our business and the biomass-based diesel industry, which may place us at a competitive disadvantage compared to our competitors that have less debt; and
|
|
|
•
|
limit among other things, our ability to borrow additional funds.
|
Our ability to make scheduled payments of the principal of, to pay interest on or to refinance our indebtedness, including the 2036 Convertible Notes and 2019 Convertible Notes, depends on our future financial performance, which is subject to several factors including economic, financial, competitive and other factors beyond our control. Our business may not generate cash flow from operations in the future sufficient to satisfy our obligations under our indebtedness or any future indebtedness we may incur as well as our ability to make necessary capital expenditures. If we are unable to generate such cash flow, we may be required to adopt one or more alternatives, such as reducing or delaying investments or capital expenditures, selling assets, refinancing or obtaining additional capital on terms that may be onerous or highly dilutive. Our ability to refinance the
2036 Convertible Notes, the 2019 Convertible Notes or our other existing indebtedness or future indebtedness will depend on the capital markets and our financial condition at such time. We may not be able to engage in any of these activities or engage in these activities on desirable terms, which could result in a default on our current or future indebtedness.
We are subject to counterparty risk with respect to the capped call transactions that we entered into in connection with the issuance of our 2019 Convertible Notes.
In connection with the issuance of our 2019 Convertible Notes, we entered into privately-negotiated capped call transactions with various counterparties. The counterparties to the capped call transactions are financial institutions, and we will be subject to the risk that they might default under the capped call transactions. Our exposure to the credit risk of the option counterparties will not be secured by any collateral. Recent global economic conditions have resulted in the actual or perceived failure or financial difficulties of many financial institutions. If any option counterparty becomes subject to insolvency proceedings, we will become an unsecured creditor in those proceedings, with a claim equal to our exposure at that time under our transactions with such option counterparty. Our exposure will depend on many factors, but generally, an increase in our exposure will be correlated to an increase in the market price and volatility of shares of our common stock. In addition, upon a default by any option counterparty, we may suffer more dilution than we currently anticipate with respect to our common stock. We can provide no assurances as to the financial stability or viability of the option counterparties.
We may not have the ability to raise the funds necessary to settle conversions of our 2019 or 2036 Convertible Notes in cash or to repurchase the 2019 or 2036 Convertible Notes for cash upon a fundamental change, and our future debt may contain limitations on our ability to repurchase the 2019 and 2036 Convertible Notes.
Holders of the 2019 or 2036 Convertible Notes have the right to require us to repurchase their 2019 or 2036 Convertible Notes upon the occurrence of a fundamental change at a repurchase price generally equal to 100% of their principal amount, plus accrued and unpaid interest, if any. In addition, upon conversion of the 2019 or 2036 Convertible Notes, unless we elect to deliver solely shares of our common stock to settle such conversion (other than paying cash in lieu of delivering any fractional share), we will be required to make cash payments in respect of the 2019 or 2036 Convertible Notes being converted. However, we may not have enough available cash or be able to obtain financing at the time we are required to make repurchases of the 2019 or 2036 Convertible Notes upon a fundamental change or to settle conversion of the 2019 or 2036 Convertible Notes in cash.
In addition, our ability to repurchase the 2019 or 2036 Convertible Notes may be limited by law, by regulatory authority or by agreements governing our future indebtedness. Our failure to repurchase 2019 or 2036 Convertible Notes at a time when the repurchase is required by the applicable indenture governing the notes would constitute a default under that indenture. A default under the applicable indenture or the fundamental change itself could also lead to a default under agreements governing our other indebtedness. If the repayment of the related indebtedness were to be accelerated after any applicable notice or grace periods, we may not have sufficient funds to repay the indebtedness and repurchase the 2019 or 2036 Convertible Notes.
Certain provisions in the indentures governing the 2019 or 2036 Convertible Notes could delay or prevent an otherwise beneficial takeover or takeover attempt of us.
Certain provisions in the 2019 or 2036 Convertible Notes and the indentures governing these notes could make it more difficult or more expensive for a third party to acquire us. For example, if a takeover would constitute a fundamental change, holders of the notes will have the right to require us to repurchase their notes in cash. In addition, if a takeover constitutes a make-whole fundamental change, we may be required to increase the conversion rate for holders who convert their notes in connection with such takeover. In either case, and in other cases, our obligations under the notes and the indentures could increase the cost of acquiring us or otherwise discourage a third party from acquiring us or removing incumbent management.
The accounting method for convertible debt securities that may be settled in cash could have a material effect on our reported financial results.
Because we are required to elect to settle note conversions solely in cash (or, subject to certain limitations, with a combination of cash and shares of our common stock) before we obtain the stockholder approval described in Note 2 and 7 of the Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements, we have to separately account for the conversion option associated with the 2036 Convertible Notes as an embedded derivative under Accounting Standards Codification, or ASC, Topic 815, Derivatives and Hedging. Under this treatment, the note conversion option will be measured at its fair value and accounted for separately as a liability that is marked-to-market at the end of each reporting period. The initial value allocated to the conversion option will be treated as a debt discount that will be amortized into interest expense over the term of the 2036 Convertible Notes. For each financial statement period after the issuance of the notes until we obtain the stockholder approval, a gain (or loss) will be reported in our statement of operations to the extent the valuation of the conversion option changes from the previous period.
As a result, we may experience related non-cash volatility to our net income (loss). In addition, as a result of the amortization of the debt discount, the interest expense associated with the notes will be greater than the coupon rate on the notes, which will result in lower reported net income. If we obtain the stockholder approval referred to above, then we expect that the conversion option will qualify for equity treatment and will no longer be marked to market at the end of each reporting period. However, we may never obtain this stockholder approval.
We are a holding company and there are limitations on our ability to receive dividends and distributions from our subsidiaries.
All of our principal assets, including our biomass-based diesel production facilities, are owned by subsidiaries and some of these subsidiaries are subject to loan covenants that generally restrict them from paying dividends, making distributions or making loans to us or to any other subsidiary. These limitations will restrict our ability to repay indebtedness, finance capital projects or pay dividends to stockholders from our subsidiaries’ cash flows from operations.
RISKS RELATED TO OUR COMMON STOCK
The market price for our common stock may be volatile.
Although there is currently an active and liquid trading market for our common stock, the market price for our common stock is likely to be highly volatile and subject to wide fluctuations in response to factors including the following:
|
|
•
|
actual or anticipated fluctuations in our financial condition and operating results;
|
|
|
•
|
changes in the performance or market valuations of other companies engaged in our industry;
|
|
|
•
|
issuance of new or updated research reports by securities or industry analysts;
|
|
|
•
|
changes in financial estimates by us or of securities or industry analysts;
|
|
|
•
|
investors’ general perception of us and the industry in which we operate;
|
|
|
•
|
changes in the political climate in the industry in which we operate, existing laws, regulations and policies applicable to our business and products, including RFS2, and the continuation or adoption or failure to continue or adopt renewable energy requirements and incentives, including the BTC;
|
|
|
•
|
other regulatory developments in our industry affecting us, our customers or our competitors;
|
|
|
•
|
announcements of technological innovations by us or our competitors;
|
|
|
•
|
announcement or expectation of additional financing efforts, including sales or expected sales of additional common stock;
|
|
|
•
|
additions or departures of key management or other personnel;
|
|
|
•
|
inadequate trading volume;
|
|
|
•
|
general market conditions in our industry; and
|
|
|
•
|
general economic and market conditions, including continued dislocations and downward pressure in the capital markets.
|
In addition, stock markets experience significant price and volume fluctuations from time to time that are not related to the operating performance of particular companies. These market fluctuations may have material adverse effect on the market price of our common stock.
We may issue additional common stock as consideration for future investments or acquisitions.
We have issued in the past, and may issue in the future, our securities in connection with investments and acquisitions. Our stockholders could suffer significant dilution, from our issuances of equity or convertible debt securities. Any new equity securities we issue could have rights, preferences and privileges superior to those of holders of our common stock. The amount of our common stock or securities convertible into or exchangeable for our common stock issued in connection with an investment or acquisition could constitute a material portion of our then outstanding common stock.
If we fail to maintain effective internal control over financial reporting, we might not be able to report our financial results accurately or prevent fraud. In that case, our stockholders could lose confidence in our financial reporting, which would harm our business and could negatively impact the value of our stock.
Effective internal controls are necessary for us to provide reliable financial reports and prevent fraud. The process of maintaining our internal controls may be expensive and time consuming and may require significant attention from management. Because of its inherent limitations, internal control over financial reporting may not prevent or detect fraud or misstatements. Failure to implement required new or improved controls, or difficulties encountered in their implementation, could harm our results of operations or cause us to fail to meet our reporting obligations.
In connection with the preparation of our quarterly report for the third quarter of 2016, we identified a material weakness in internal control over financial reporting relating to our biomass-based diesel sales contract review process. Until the remediation steps we have undertaken to address this material weakness are fully implemented and operating for a sufficient period of time, the material weakness will continue to exist. If we or our independent registered public accounting firm discover material weaknesses, the disclosure of that fact could harm the value of our stock and our business.
We have never paid dividends on our common stock and we do not anticipate paying any cash dividends in the foreseeable future.
We have paid no cash dividends on our common stock to date, have contractual restrictions against paying cash dividends and currently intend to retain our future earnings to fund the development and growth of our business. As a result, stockholders must look solely to appreciation of our common stock to realize a gain on their investment. This appreciation may not occur. Investors seeking cash dividends should not invest in our common stock.
Delaware law and our amended and restated certificate of incorporation and bylaws contain anti-takeover provisions that could delay or discourage takeover attempts that stockholders may consider favorable.
Provisions in our amended and restated certificate of incorporation and bylaws may have the effect of delaying or preventing a change of control or changes in our management. These provisions include the following:
|
|
•
|
the right of the board of directors to elect a director to fill a vacancy created by the expansion of the board of directors;
|
|
|
•
|
the requirement for advance notice for nominations for election to the board of directors or for proposing matters that can be acted upon at a stockholders’ meeting;
|
|
|
•
|
the ability of the board of directors to alter our bylaws without obtaining stockholder approval;
|
|
|
•
|
the ability of the board of directors to issue, without stockholder approval, up to 10,000,000 shares of preferred stock with rights set by the board of directors, which rights could be senior to those of common stock;
|
|
|
•
|
the required approval of holders of at least two-thirds of the shares entitled to vote at an election of directors to adopt, amend or repeal our bylaws or amend or repeal the provisions of our amended and restated certificate of incorporation regarding the classified board, the election and removal of directors and the ability of stockholders to take action by written consent; and
|
|
|
•
|
the elimination of the right of stockholders to call a special meeting of stockholders and to take action by written consent.
|
In addition, because we are incorporated in Delaware, we are governed by the provisions of Section 203 of the Delaware General Corporation Law, or DGCL. These provisions may prohibit or restrict large stockholders, in particular those owning 15% or more of our outstanding voting stock, from merging or combining with us. These provisions in our amended and restated certificate of incorporation and bylaws and under Delaware law could discourage potential takeover attempts and could reduce the price that investors might be willing to pay for shares of our common stock in the future and result in our market price being lower than it would without these provisions.