Hanjin’s Creditors May Receive Less Than Two Cents on the Dollar

Agree to a settlement of less than two cents on the dollar now to preserve liquidity and avoid drawn-out disputes. Hanjin’s creditors face a narrowing window as disputes unfold across trans-pacific routes and a chaebol-linked structure that positioned the enterprise for multi-jurisdictional risk.

Across years of case work, creditors have observed that recoveries hinge on containerships and other vessel assets, with tierra holdings and port-related facilities shaping the valuation. The coast-to-coast dynamic of unloading schedules and port congestion adds friction, making liquidations occur in staged, asset-specific timelines through which secured claims can be prioritized while avoiding value erosion.

The sole secured positions offer the clearest path to recovery, but disputes remain a major drag. Demise risks grow if liquidation proceeds stall, and several assets need careful coordination across koreas and overseas registries to prevent cross-defaults on titles and liens.

To act effectively, map assets by category: containerships and other vessel fleets, land-based assets, and related assets that can be priced and moved with minimal unloading disruption. Position the strategy around the trans-pacific corridor, aligning payment streams with port activity and ensuring that the chaebol-linked interests do not buoy unrealistic expectations for recovery.

Publish a concise supporting dossier for creditors, including title records, registry data, and ongoing dispute status, then engage a neutral mediator with maritime experience. Communicate with clarity and set concrete milestones so stakeholders understand how proceeds flow through to the sole creditor group that ultimately controls the liquidation path.

Hanjin’s Creditors and Green Shipping Corridors: A Practical Outline

Form a creditor-led coalition to establish a Green Shipping Corridor framework now. The establishment would align banks, port authorities, and carriers like hapag-lloyds to set shared goals and milestones across worlds of global trade. Start with a concrete initial five-year pilot on two corridors and publish a baseline to measure progress.

Adoption would be widespread: the framework would be adopted by carriers, ports, and banks, yielding participation throughout major routes. Carriers such as hapag-lloyds and other liners would align schedules to support slow-steaming, reduce fuel use, and cut emissions. Banks would provide credit facilities tied to performance on emissions, reliability, and costs. This approach creates a practical path for thousands of shipments and the goods moving through key hubs.

Operational metrics and goods flows: Use twenty-foot containers to standardize data collection at every port call and track performance across corridors. Initial targets aim to cut fuel burn per TEU-km by 15-25% on pilot routes, with continued improvements as fleets implement slow-steaming, weather routing, and reduced idle times. Rates, on-time performance, and cargo integrity would be monitored across thousands of movements to demonstrate real value for shippers and creditors alike.

Credit and legal framework: Court approvals would validate restructurings and corridor contracts, anchoring green finance with enforceable covenants. Banks would back credit facilities with favorable terms when metrics meet targets, while the development would rely on transparent reporting and robust risk controls. Learned lessons from earlier restructurings inform governance, so the establishment maintains clear accountability and prevents severely overstretched balance sheets from derailing progress.

Risk and implementation: Although coordinating multiple ports and carriers is complex, the approach would steadily lower operating costs, shrink emissions, and stabilize rates for goods transport. It would strengthen the creditors’ position across the shipping landscape, creating a durable foundation for continued development throughout the sector and reinforcing trust in the global liner network.

Creditor Recovery Ranges by Class: Secured, Unsecured, and Subordinated Claims

Recommendation: Start with secured claims as the primary driver of recovery estimates, then price unsecured and subordinated outcomes accordingly, using a phased plan that aligns with asset sales, enforceable liens, and targeted settlements.

• Secured Claims: Recovery range 40-65% of face value on average, with potential to reach 70% when collateral is high-quality, liquid, and easily monetized (for example, large ships or port facilities in hubs). In asian markets and other regions, diversified collateral can push recoveries toward the upper end if enforcement is efficient and markets remain robust, even as overcapacity challenges press prices in downturn. Initial distributions often emerge at 20-35%, with the remainder released through staged auctions, refinancing, or monetization of preferred collateral. Critical factors include lien priority, asset salability, and costs of sale across networks of shipyards, brokers, and port operators.
• Unsecured Claims: Recovery range 5-25% of face value, reflecting higher risk and lack of collateral. Steady recoveries require a targeted approach: creditor committees, plan collaboration, and early settlements with debtors to maximize value before long debts workouts. In large, global restructurings, unsecured recoveries can rise to the low 20s when secured buckets cover a substantial portion of obligations, while in harsh markets they may sink toward single digits. Entry points for unsecured teams include pro rata allocations after secured distributions and prioritized claims proceedings that feed into the initial plan.
• Subordinated Claims: Recovery range 0-10% typically, rarely exceeding 15% in cases where equity kickers or favorable restructurings create limited upside. Subordinated creditors should prepare for protracted timelines, with value capture driven by governance concessions, debt-for-equity swaps, or consent-based restructurings that unlock residual proceeds after senior layers are satisfied. In a widespread downturn, disciplined handling of these claims prevents value leakage and preserves options for strategic cooperation with other creditor classes.

Operational notes: A global, diversified profile – including maritime assets, diversified debts, and robust networks across hubs – improves predictability. Monitor slow-steaming dynamics and overcapacity that affect asset values, and align the initial launch of settlements with a plan to optimize recovery across billions of dollars in collateral assets. This targeted approach protects sole creditor interests while leveraging strategic partnerships to accelerate value realization.

Distribution Timing and Legal Pathways: Steps, Courts, and Practical Milestones

Recommendation: Implement a court-approved, staged distribution plan that prioritizes secured creditors first and accelerates access to funds for essential operating costs within the bankrupt company. Tie disbursements to clearly defined milestones to reduce delay and cost overruns.

Step 1: Asset and lien mapping. Build a complete picture of the chain of collateral, including ships, cargos, and real property used in operations. Identify which part of the company still generates value and which assets support the broader enterprise. Document liens held by banks and other secured parties, and expose any gaps that could slow entry to distributions.

Step 2: Court timeline and claims entry. File the plan with local courts in koreas, request a prompt scheduling order, and require proofs of claim by day 60 after filing. Use an automated system to accept claims and alert creditors, ensuring access to the process and reducing administrative cost.

Step 3: Asset development and potential demise handling. Assess whether assets are operating, expanding, or idle. Decide on asset sales where appropriate to recover value, while preserving value for critical operations. For transported cargo, establish monetization through existing lanes and liners in a predictable timetable.

Step 4: Payment mechanics and value realization. Structure payments to minimize disruption and avoid cascading losses. Use an automated disbursement platform to process allocations in billions when cash becomes available, while maintaining a broader, orderly framework that respects priority, including secured debt and any ongoing supporting obligations. This sequence underscored the need for a clear, creditor-balanced approach to avoid liquidity shocks across the chain.

Practical milestones to track. Interim distributions following court approval (within 30–90 days), confirmation of the plan (60–180 days), sale of non-core assets (6–12 months), and final decree (12–24 months). Later, management should refresh the plan to reflect new recoveries and market conditions. Each milestone underscores progress and helps creditors gauge overall recovery prospects. Maintain a local communication lane with creditors to ensure timely updates and minimize surprises.

Risk management. Delays, volatile cargo values in koreas markets, and unexpected costs could affect timing. Keep an explicit contingency plan, including cost controls, a fallback to interim distributions if asset values decline, and actions prompted by cash-flow signals to adjust quickly.

Overall, a disciplined schedule that aligns entry thresholds, credible asset valuations, and governance can convert a complex demise into a structured process that preserves value for lenders, suppliers, and employees.

Asset Tracing and Claim Validation: How to Identify Recoverable Assets

Begin with a targeted profile of recoverable assets tied to hanjin containerships and related freight claims to prevent dissipation and set recoveries in motion.

Develop a koreas-based asset map and assign a dedicated team to monitor changes in ownership; the shift in data sources helps absorb gaps and accelerate results.

Gather unloading records and port documents, including unloading logs, bills of lading, carrier statements, and registry entries to validate recoverable claims.

Validate claims by cross-checking creditor profiles and tribunal filings, confirming claim status, recoverable amounts, and priority.

Preserve assets by freezing accounts, halting transfers, and aligning with tribunals for provisional measures; plan next steps for recoveries based on similar cases.

Maintain a disciplined update cadence and document findings in a single profile file to keep stakeholders informed and to support a credible recovery path.

Green Corridor Rollout: Key Routes, Pilots, and Financing Sources

Starting with three core corridors, launch pilots this year and secure diversified funding to cover port upgrades, clean propulsion, and feeder connections.

Routes prioritized are Cai Mep (Vung Tau) to Singapore, Haiphong to Da Nang, and Hue to Ho Chi Minh City, each paired with feeder links to inland rail and road corridors.

Pilots will deploy zero-emission container ships on short-haul segments and LNG-powered trucking for last-mile hops, with operators, terminal firms, and feeder lines agreeing to shared KPIs on energy use and CO2 intensity, having clear data rights and coordinated schedules, with goods transported across routes and having traceable responsibility.

Financing sources include blended finance from MDBs, green bonds, and sustainability-linked loans; entry points cover grants for zero-emission equipment, port electrification, and pilot-related risk sharing, with pricing likely to improve, even as performance proves.

Policy alignment: Vietnam’s authorities, port owners, and shipping lines must form established governance around routes, liabilities, and data sharing; rejected proposals are analyzed to refine scope, and mckevitt vietnam coordinates risk assessments to support decisions, underscoring accountability.

Operating plan: start three pilots in Q3, with a diversified feeder network and two rail segments linking ports to inland hubs; monitor emissions, transport performance, and liabilities, and adjust routes and financing based on data, strengthening the chains and ensuring their prompt integration into existing logistics, involving leading operators and forming collaborations that reuse assets and reduce empty runs.

IMO Setback Fallout: Regulatory Changes, Policy Signals, and Industry Responses

Recommendation: form a cross-stakeholder task force; prioritize opening dialogue with west coast port authorities and carriers; lock in capacity via five long-term contracts on trans-pacific routes to reduce exposure to sudden policy shifts. Establish joint KPI dashboards to monitor regulatory signals and operational risk across maritime storage, trucking, and teus.

Policy signals outline five directions: tighter data reporting and transparency across shipments; stricter vessel emissions rules; faster ballast water compliance; expanded port-state oversight to inland corridors; and higher penalties for misdeclarations. Since these measures span worldwide operations, district-level procedures involving inland hubs and coastal facilities adapt to new routines and timelines, with clear responsibilities assigned to operators, regulators, and service partners.

Industry responses accelerate integration across the supply chain. Operators re-map networks to maintain operating reliability, forming alliances that cover key routes and enabling smoother handoffs between ships, carriers, trucking, and storage facilities. Thousands of teus move through the network daily; what matters is disciplined execution: real-time data sharing, predefined escalation steps, and contingency funding to weather demand swings since the setback.

Action plan for stakeholders emphasizes phased adjustments: reroute non-critical cargo to less congested ports now, then expand inland trucking and storage capacity in districts with the strongest demand signals. Invest capital in terminal automation to boost throughput and resilience. Create a district-wide data federation to feed insights to carriers, shippers, and regulators, enabling faster responses to policy signals while sustaining worldwide service levels.