We welcome article submissions from experts in the areas of coal, mining,
shipping, etc.
To Submit your article please click here.
|
|
|
Tuesday, 29 July 14
GENCO: DRY BULK SHIPPING VALUATIONS NO LONGER ANCHORED TO DISCOUNTED CASH FLOW METHOD - WEIL
 KNOWLEDGE TO ELEVATE
Discounted cash flow analysis is a mainstay among the valuation methodologies used by restructuring professionals and bankruptcy courts to determine the enterprise value of a distressed business. Despite its prevalence, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York recently concluded the DCF method was inappropriate for the valuation of “dry bulk” shipping companies. In re Genco Shipping & Trading Limited. Although the bankruptcy court merely applied existing law to the facts of the case, the decision in Genco could serve as precedent for the valuation of companies in other segments of the shipping industry, or other industries, that experience significant volatility in rates.
Genco and the Prepackaged Plan of Reorganization
Genco Shipping & Trading Limited is a leading provider of maritime transportation services for “dry bulk” cargoes, such as iron ore, coal, grain, and steel products. Through its subsidiaries, Genco owns and operates a fleet of 53 vessels, which it contracts out to third-parties under fixed-rate or spot-market time charters.
In April 2014, Genco and certain of its affiliates commenced cases under chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code to implement a prepackaged plan of reorganization that would consensually restructure approximately $1.48 billion in secured and unsecured debt. The Genco plan provided the following key features:
- Approximately $1.2 billion of secured debt would be converted into equity in the reorganized company.
- New capital would be invested through a $100 million, fully backstopped rights offering.
- The maturities for two secured prepetition facilities would be extended.
- Allowed general unsecured claims would be reinstated and paid in the ordinary course of business.
- Existing equity holders would receive warrants for up to 6% of the equity in the reorganized company.
The plan garnered unanimous approval from Genco’s secured lenders and holders of its unsecured convertible notes.
The Genco plan was premised on an enterprise valuation between $1.36 billion and $1.44 billion. The debtors derived this range of values from a “Net Asset Valuation” analysis, a methodology commonly applied to shipping companies in non-bankruptcy contexts. An upcoming post will examine the bankruptcy court’s analysis of the NAV methodology in the bankruptcy context.
Equity Committee Contested Genco Plan Valuation
Less than three weeks into the bankruptcy, the U.S. Trustee appointed an equity committee, which was comprised of (i) Aurelius Capital Partners LP, (ii) Mohawk Capital LLC, and (iii) OZ Domestic Partners, LP (a/k/a Och Ziff).
The equity committee objected to confirmation of the Genco plan. It argued, among other things, that the debtors’ enterprise value was actually between $1.54 billion and $1.91 billion. The equity committee argued that, because the debtors were solvent under its valuation, existing equity holders were entitled to greater recoveries than those provided under the Genco plan. The equity committee derived its range of values from a weighted average of its DCF, comparable company, precedent transaction, and NAV analyses, with each weighted at 37.5%, 37.5%, 10%, and 15%, respectively
Bankruptcy Court Rejected DCF Methodology for Dry Bulk Shippers
To determine whether Genco’s enterprise value exceeded $1.48 billion, the amount at which existing equity holders would be entitled to any recovery, the bankruptcy court examined the testimony presented with respect to each of the four valuation methodologies. The bankruptcy court concluded that there were “many good reasons that the DCF method should not be applied here” and considered only the remaining three methodologies, ultimately determining that the debtors’ value did not exceed $1.48 billion.
The bankruptcy court began its analysis of the DCF methodology by explaining it briefly, as follows:
A discounted cash flow analysis entails estimating the periodic cash flow that a company will generate over a discrete time period, determining the ‘terminal value’ of the company at the end of the period, and discounting each of the cash flows and terminal value to determine the total value as of the relevant date.
Thus, even though a DCF analysis is a “traditional methodology,” it is of limited use when based on projections of future cash flows that are unreliable or difficult to ascertain. The bankruptcy court found that accurate cash flow projections did not exist for Genco, and it observed that the parties agreed on this point. In fact, the equity committee’s financial adviser testified that “shipping rates are volatile and the industry can be characterized as cyclical ….” In addition, the committee’s expert witness conceded that “[i]t is difficult to accurately forecast freight rates in drybulk shipping …. [and that] the drybulk market is dynamic and volatile.”
Interestingly, the bankruptcy court concluded not just that accurate projections were unobtainable in the case of Genco, specifically, but also for dry bulk shippers, generally. The bankruptcy court observed that the DCF method is inappropriate for the dry bulk shipping market because it is volatile and highly fragmented, has low barriers to entry, and little differentiation exists among competitors, causing charter rates to fluctuate with supply and demand and making revenues unpredictable. The bankruptcy court further noted that its market-wide concerns were exacerbated in the case of Genco because its longer-term charters are set to expire by October 2014, leaving the company entirely exposed to market volatility through spot-rate charters.
Equity Committee’s DCF Analysis Unpersuasive for Additional Reasons
Although the bankruptcy court found that “the volatility of the [dry bulk] industry is a sufficient basis by itself to reject a DCF analysis,” it proceeded to identify a number of particular problems with the equity committee’s DCF analysis that made it unpersuasive.
First, the bankruptcy court noted that the equity committee’s heavy reliance on its DCF analysis was internally inconsistent because the assumptions about future industry performance underlying the analysis were based on reports from equity analysts, most of whom did not utilize the DCF method in reaching their conclusions. Second, in written materials presented to Och Ziff prior to the bankruptcy filing, the financial adviser to the equity committee noted that the DCF method was not commonly used to value companies in the shipping industry.
The bankruptcy court also noted that, before being retained by the equity committee, the financial adviser to the equity committee prepared pitch materials for debtors in which it estimated a shortfall in Genco’s collateral value. The bankruptcy court made clear that it did not rely on this fact in reaching its decision, but mentioned it and other, similar statements that undermined the credibility of the testimony presented by the financial adviser to the equity committee. Third, the equity committee’s argument that DCF analyses were used in fairness opinions issued in connection with certain maritime M&A transactions was not compelling because other evidence suggested that those transactions focused more on the NAV methodology for purposes of valuation, and there was conflicting testimony on the usefulness of fairness opinions in the context of a contested hearing on valuation.
Finally, the bankruptcy court found that the testimony presented by the equity committee’s expert witness regarding shipping rate forecasts was “unpersuasive and less credible than that” presented by the debtors’ expert.
Lessons Learned
The prospective nature of the DCF method often allows parties to advocate for higher valuations on subjective and/or intangible grounds. The Genco decision is significant because it establishes a clear precedent rejecting the DCF method when determining the enterprise value of dry bulk shipping companies in bankruptcy. This precedent may reduce the leverage of parties, such as equity holders, that would benefit from a higher valuation of a dry bulk shipper.
The decision, however, will likely have farther-reaching consequences. Dry bulk is just one segment of the larger shipping industry, and many other segments share the characteristics that the bankruptcy court cited to support its conclusion that accurate projections were unobtainable. Similarly, shipping is not the only industry with notable volatility; other industries may soon be the next port of call for the Genco decision.
Source: Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP, Gabriel A. Morgan / Hellenic Shipping
If you believe an article violates your rights or the rights of others, please contact us.
|
|
Tuesday, 11 November 14
PORT OF NEWCASTLE'S OCTOBER COAL SHIPMENTS SLIPPED 7.40% M-O-M
COALspot.com: The Port of Newcastle, Australia’s major trading ports and the world’s largest coal export port, has shipped $1,115.7 mil ...
Monday, 10 November 14
Q4' 15 FOB INDONESIA COAL SWAP CLOSED LOWER THAN Q1' 15 CLOSING PRICE OF US$ 49.58 ON LAST FRIDAY
COALspot.com: Indonesian coal swaps for delivery Q1' 2015 lost month on month, week on week and day on day.
The Q1 swap has lost just US$ ...
Monday, 10 November 14
SGX'S API 4 FOB RICHARDS BAY COAL SWAP FOR Q1' 2015 DELIVERY CLOSED AT US$ 65.44 ON 7 NOV, LOST 4.08% M-O-M
COALspot.com: API 4 FOB Richards Bay Coal swap for Q1’ 2015 delivery has decreased US$ 2.78 (-4.08%) month over month and US$ 1.41 (-2.11%) w ...
Monday, 10 November 14
MOZAMBIQUE SIGNED CONTRACT WITH ETA STAR OF UAE FOR OPEN CAST COAL MINE IN TETE - AIM
- ETA Star to build slurry pipeline over the 600 kilometers to Beira in Mozambique to transport coal.
- The viability studies show the presence o ...
Monday, 10 November 14
YEAR 2015 CFR SOUTH CHINA COAL SWAP SHOWS A WEAK TREND THIS PAST WEEK
COALspot.com: API 8 CFR South China Coal swap for Q1’ 2015 delivery has decreased US$ 3.74 (-5.63%) month over month and US$ 2.19 (+3.37%) we ...
|
|
|
Showing 3386 to 3390 news of total 6871 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
 |
|
|
| |
|
- Jorong Barutama Greston.PT - Indonesia
- Alfred C Toepfer International GmbH - Germany
- Sical Logistics Limited - India
- Vizag Seaport Private Limited - India
- Samtan Co., Ltd - South Korea
- Krishnapatnam Port Company Ltd. - India
- Australian Commodity Traders Exchange
- Bank of Tokyo Mitsubishi UFJ Ltd
- Attock Cement Pakistan Limited
- Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission - India
- Maheswari Brothers Coal Limited - India
- Asmin Koalindo Tuhup - Indonesia
- VISA Power Limited - India
- Bahari Cakrawala Sebuku - Indonesia
- Sree Jayajothi Cements Limited - India
- Larsen & Toubro Limited - India
- Toyota Tsusho Corporation, Japan
- Parliament of New Zealand
- Interocean Group of Companies - India
- Gujarat Mineral Development Corp Ltd - India
- Videocon Industries ltd - India
- Salva Resources Pvt Ltd - India
- Power Finance Corporation Ltd., India
- Baramulti Group, Indonesia
- Bhushan Steel Limited - India
- Kobexindo Tractors - Indoneisa
- Vedanta Resources Plc - India
- Banpu Public Company Limited - Thailand
- Bangladesh Power Developement Board
- Agrawal Coal Company - India
- Wood Mackenzie - Singapore
- Merrill Lynch Commodities Europe
- ICICI Bank Limited - India
- Jaiprakash Power Ventures ltd
- Kumho Petrochemical, South Korea
- Cement Manufacturers Association - India
- Bulk Trading Sa - Switzerland
- Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd, - India
- Essar Steel Hazira Ltd - India
- Directorate General of MIneral and Coal - Indonesia
- PNOC Exploration Corporation - Philippines
- India Bulls Power Limited - India
- Indika Energy - Indonesia
- ASAPP Information Group - India
- New Zealand Coal & Carbon
- Tamil Nadu electricity Board
- Makarim & Taira - Indonesia
- Metalloyd Limited - United Kingdom
- LBH Netherlands Bv - Netherlands
- Madhucon Powers Ltd - India
- Ministry of Mines - Canada
- AsiaOL BioFuels Corp., Philippines
- Georgia Ports Authority, United States
- Star Paper Mills Limited - India
- TNB Fuel Sdn Bhd - Malaysia
- South Luzon Thermal Energy Corporation
- SMC Global Power, Philippines
- Cigading International Bulk Terminal - Indonesia
- Filglen & Citicon Mining (HK) Ltd - Hong Kong
- Jindal Steel & Power Ltd - India
- Indian Energy Exchange, India
- Economic Council, Georgia
- Indonesian Coal Mining Association
- Kalimantan Lumbung Energi - Indonesia
- Kepco SPC Power Corporation, Philippines
- Holcim Trading Pte Ltd - Singapore
- Asia Pacific Energy Resources Ventures Inc, Philippines
- OPG Power Generation Pvt Ltd - India
- Rio Tinto Coal - Australia
- Romanian Commodities Exchange
- The University of Queensland
- Formosa Plastics Group - Taiwan
- Orica Australia Pty. Ltd.
- Ministry of Transport, Egypt
- Miang Besar Coal Terminal - Indonesia
- Lanco Infratech Ltd - India
- Antam Resourcindo - Indonesia
- Global Coal Blending Company Limited - Australia
- Sindya Power Generating Company Private Ltd
- Singapore Mercantile Exchange
- Truba Alam Manunggal Engineering.Tbk - Indonesia
- Barasentosa Lestari - Indonesia
- Coalindo Energy - Indonesia
- Ceylon Electricity Board - Sri Lanka
- Aboitiz Power Corporation - Philippines
- Kohat Cement Company Ltd. - Pakistan
- Kapuas Tunggal Persada - Indonesia
- Oldendorff Carriers - Singapore
- London Commodity Brokers - England
- Commonwealth Bank - Australia
- Parry Sugars Refinery, India
- Mercuria Energy - Indonesia
- Timah Investasi Mineral - Indoneisa
- Uttam Galva Steels Limited - India
- Globalindo Alam Lestari - Indonesia
- Planning Commission, India
- Petron Corporation, Philippines
- Mjunction Services Limited - India
- GVK Power & Infra Limited - India
- San Jose City I Power Corp, Philippines
- SN Aboitiz Power Inc, Philippines
- Deloitte Consulting - India
- Bukit Makmur.PT - Indonesia
- Mintek Dendrill Indonesia
- Siam City Cement PLC, Thailand
- Siam City Cement - Thailand
- MS Steel International - UAE
- Bhoruka Overseas - Indonesia
- Offshore Bulk Terminal Pte Ltd, Singapore
- Trasteel International SA, Italy
- Sojitz Corporation - Japan
- Simpson Spence & Young - Indonesia
- Dong Bac Coal Mineral Investment Coporation - Vietnam
- Anglo American - United Kingdom
- Energy Development Corp, Philippines
- Pipit Mutiara Jaya. PT, Indonesia
- Central Java Power - Indonesia
- Bayan Resources Tbk. - Indonesia
- Bharathi Cement Corporation - India
- Coastal Gujarat Power Limited - India
- Goldman Sachs - Singapore
- Renaissance Capital - South Africa
- Dalmia Cement Bharat India
- Therma Luzon, Inc, Philippines
- The Treasury - Australian Government
- IHS Mccloskey Coal Group - USA
- Intertek Mineral Services - Indonesia
- Coal and Oil Company - UAE
- Independent Power Producers Association of India
- Borneo Indobara - Indonesia
- Riau Bara Harum - Indonesia
- Bukit Baiduri Energy - Indonesia
- Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited - India
- GAC Shipping (India) Pvt Ltd
- SMG Consultants - Indonesia
- Electricity Authority, New Zealand
- Orica Mining Services - Indonesia
- Dr Ramakrishna Prasad Power Pvt Ltd - India
- Kartika Selabumi Mining - Indonesia
- Kaltim Prima Coal - Indonesia
- CIMB Investment Bank - Malaysia
- Indo Tambangraya Megah - Indonesia
- Global Business Power Corporation, Philippines
- Australian Coal Association
- Sarangani Energy Corporation, Philippines
- Ministry of Finance - Indonesia
- Mercator Lines Limited - India
- Posco Energy - South Korea
- Central Electricity Authority - India
- Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission - India
- Ambuja Cements Ltd - India
- Meralco Power Generation, Philippines
- Wilmar Investment Holdings
- TeaM Sual Corporation - Philippines
- Eastern Energy - Thailand
- Billiton Holdings Pty Ltd - Australia
- Karbindo Abesyapradhi - Indoneisa
- Tata Chemicals Ltd - India
- Straits Asia Resources Limited - Singapore
- Xindia Steels Limited - India
- Grasim Industreis Ltd - India
- Standard Chartered Bank - UAE
- Savvy Resources Ltd - HongKong
- Semirara Mining Corp, Philippines
- Meenaskhi Energy Private Limited - India
- Ind-Barath Power Infra Limited - India
- Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd - Australia
- GN Power Mariveles Coal Plant, Philippines
- Thai Mozambique Logistica
- Malabar Cements Ltd - India
- Marubeni Corporation - India
- Chamber of Mines of South Africa
- The State Trading Corporation of India Ltd
- Chettinad Cement Corporation Ltd - India
- Carbofer General Trading SA - India
- Bhatia International Limited - India
- Manunggal Multi Energi - Indonesia
- PowerSource Philippines DevCo
- CNBM International Corporation - China
- Eastern Coal Council - USA
- GMR Energy Limited - India
- Indian Oil Corporation Limited
- Petrochimia International Co. Ltd.- Taiwan
- McConnell Dowell - Australia
- Port Waratah Coal Services - Australia
- Sakthi Sugars Limited - India
- Latin American Coal - Colombia
- Semirara Mining and Power Corporation, Philippines
- International Coal Ventures Pvt Ltd - India
- Aditya Birla Group - India
- Vijayanagar Sugar Pvt Ltd - India
- Indogreen Group - Indonesia
- Global Green Power PLC Corporation, Philippines
- IEA Clean Coal Centre - UK
- Price Waterhouse Coopers - Russia
- White Energy Company Limited
- European Bulk Services B.V. - Netherlands
- Minerals Council of Australia
- Edison Trading Spa - Italy
- Altura Mining Limited, Indonesia
- PetroVietnam Power Coal Import and Supply Company
- Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand
- Directorate Of Revenue Intelligence - India
- Gujarat Sidhee Cement - India
- Medco Energi Mining Internasional
- Africa Commodities Group - South Africa
- Karaikal Port Pvt Ltd - India
- Sinarmas Energy and Mining - Indonesia
- PTC India Limited - India
- Thiess Contractors Indonesia
- Heidelberg Cement - Germany
- Iligan Light & Power Inc, Philippines
- Bukit Asam (Persero) Tbk - Indonesia
- Kideco Jaya Agung - Indonesia
- Binh Thuan Hamico - Vietnam
- Pendopo Energi Batubara - Indonesia
- Energy Link Ltd, New Zealand
|
| |
| |
|
