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.
|
|
Sunday, 09 November 14
CAPE INDEX UP 3.06%; PANAMAX INDEX FELL 4.05%
COALspot.com: The BDI was almost at same levels compared to last week closing or just increased 0.77 pct from last week. The BDI was closed at 1437 ...
Friday, 07 November 14
U.S. PRODUCED 85.60 MILLION SHORT TONS OF COAL IN OCTOBER, UP 2.88% M-O-M
COALspot.com – United States the world's one of the largest coal producers, produced approximately 19.0 million short tons (mmst) of coal ...
Thursday, 06 November 14
THE ATLANTIC HAS REMAINED STRONG WITH A HEALTHY SUPPLY OF NEW CARGOES
Handy
This week has continued its slow trend in both hemispheres and even though rates are a bit up w-o-w it is not a clear sign for any improvem ...
Wednesday, 05 November 14
CAPESIZE SEGMENT ENJOYED FIRMING RATES ACROSS BOTH BASINS
Following a fantastic week in terms of rate performance for Capes, the Dry Bulk market managed to note another positive weekly closing, which stron ...
Wednesday, 05 November 14
SHIPPING MARKET INSIGHT - PANOS TSILINGIRIS
COALspot.com: The steep appreciation in dry bulker values between late 2012 and March 2014 resulted in unrealistically expensive ship values compar ...
|
|
|
Showing 3391 to 3395 news of total 6871 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
 |
|
|
| |
|
- McConnell Dowell - Australia
- Siam City Cement PLC, Thailand
- Krishnapatnam Port Company Ltd. - India
- PowerSource Philippines DevCo
- The University of Queensland
- SN Aboitiz Power Inc, Philippines
- Marubeni Corporation - India
- Australian Coal Association
- Iligan Light & Power Inc, Philippines
- CIMB Investment Bank - Malaysia
- ASAPP Information Group - India
- Bhoruka Overseas - Indonesia
- GN Power Mariveles Coal Plant, Philippines
- Antam Resourcindo - Indonesia
- Kartika Selabumi Mining - Indonesia
- Indonesian Coal Mining Association
- SMC Global Power, Philippines
- Kapuas Tunggal Persada - Indonesia
- Bayan Resources Tbk. - Indonesia
- Malabar Cements Ltd - India
- Thiess Contractors Indonesia
- Indika Energy - Indonesia
- Essar Steel Hazira Ltd - India
- Petrochimia International Co. Ltd.- Taiwan
- Sarangani Energy Corporation, Philippines
- Renaissance Capital - South Africa
- Orica Mining Services - Indonesia
- Binh Thuan Hamico - Vietnam
- Bank of Tokyo Mitsubishi UFJ Ltd
- Bahari Cakrawala Sebuku - Indonesia
- Romanian Commodities Exchange
- OPG Power Generation Pvt Ltd - India
- Vedanta Resources Plc - India
- Karbindo Abesyapradhi - Indoneisa
- Price Waterhouse Coopers - Russia
- Trasteel International SA, Italy
- Therma Luzon, Inc, Philippines
- Kaltim Prima Coal - Indonesia
- Madhucon Powers Ltd - India
- Altura Mining Limited, Indonesia
- Indogreen Group - Indonesia
- Directorate General of MIneral and Coal - Indonesia
- Cement Manufacturers Association - India
- San Jose City I Power Corp, Philippines
- Rio Tinto Coal - Australia
- Videocon Industries ltd - India
- Eastern Energy - Thailand
- Bukit Baiduri Energy - Indonesia
- New Zealand Coal & Carbon
- Ambuja Cements Ltd - India
- MS Steel International - UAE
- Edison Trading Spa - Italy
- Pendopo Energi Batubara - Indonesia
- Agrawal Coal Company - India
- Toyota Tsusho Corporation, Japan
- Coalindo Energy - Indonesia
- Banpu Public Company Limited - Thailand
- Indian Energy Exchange, India
- PTC India Limited - India
- Global Green Power PLC Corporation, Philippines
- Singapore Mercantile Exchange
- Pipit Mutiara Jaya. PT, Indonesia
- London Commodity Brokers - England
- Carbofer General Trading SA - India
- Sindya Power Generating Company Private Ltd
- Kohat Cement Company Ltd. - Pakistan
- Coastal Gujarat Power Limited - India
- Ministry of Transport, Egypt
- Mjunction Services Limited - India
- Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd, - India
- The State Trading Corporation of India Ltd
- Africa Commodities Group - South Africa
- IEA Clean Coal Centre - UK
- Bukit Asam (Persero) Tbk - Indonesia
- Gujarat Sidhee Cement - India
- Meenaskhi Energy Private Limited - India
- White Energy Company Limited
- Timah Investasi Mineral - Indoneisa
- Georgia Ports Authority, United States
- Goldman Sachs - Singapore
- Asia Pacific Energy Resources Ventures Inc, Philippines
- Filglen & Citicon Mining (HK) Ltd - Hong Kong
- PNOC Exploration Corporation - Philippines
- Wood Mackenzie - Singapore
- Anglo American - United Kingdom
- Lanco Infratech Ltd - India
- Larsen & Toubro Limited - India
- Kumho Petrochemical, South Korea
- Bhushan Steel Limited - India
- Chamber of Mines of South Africa
- Ministry of Mines - Canada
- Manunggal Multi Energi - Indonesia
- Energy Link Ltd, New Zealand
- Kideco Jaya Agung - Indonesia
- Deloitte Consulting - India
- Dalmia Cement Bharat India
- Directorate Of Revenue Intelligence - India
- Port Waratah Coal Services - Australia
- Sojitz Corporation - Japan
- Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand
- Cigading International Bulk Terminal - Indonesia
- Commonwealth Bank - Australia
- Aboitiz Power Corporation - Philippines
- Electricity Authority, New Zealand
- Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission - India
- Billiton Holdings Pty Ltd - Australia
- Riau Bara Harum - Indonesia
- Holcim Trading Pte Ltd - Singapore
- Sinarmas Energy and Mining - Indonesia
- Meralco Power Generation, Philippines
- GAC Shipping (India) Pvt Ltd
- Dr Ramakrishna Prasad Power Pvt Ltd - India
- Miang Besar Coal Terminal - Indonesia
- Economic Council, Georgia
- Mercator Lines Limited - India
- Indian Oil Corporation Limited
- Grasim Industreis Ltd - India
- India Bulls Power Limited - India
- Indo Tambangraya Megah - Indonesia
- Tata Chemicals Ltd - India
- ICICI Bank Limited - India
- Orica Australia Pty. Ltd.
- Coal and Oil Company - UAE
- Bhatia International Limited - India
- Eastern Coal Council - USA
- Xindia Steels Limited - India
- Gujarat Mineral Development Corp Ltd - India
- Offshore Bulk Terminal Pte Ltd, Singapore
- Bukit Makmur.PT - Indonesia
- Salva Resources Pvt Ltd - India
- Ministry of Finance - Indonesia
- Petron Corporation, Philippines
- GMR Energy Limited - India
- TNB Fuel Sdn Bhd - Malaysia
- International Coal Ventures Pvt Ltd - India
- Kepco SPC Power Corporation, Philippines
- VISA Power Limited - India
- Simpson Spence & Young - Indonesia
- Planning Commission, India
- Oldendorff Carriers - Singapore
- IHS Mccloskey Coal Group - USA
- Standard Chartered Bank - UAE
- Intertek Mineral Services - Indonesia
- Vizag Seaport Private Limited - India
- Wilmar Investment Holdings
- Ind-Barath Power Infra Limited - India
- Semirara Mining and Power Corporation, Philippines
- Semirara Mining Corp, Philippines
- Ceylon Electricity Board - Sri Lanka
- Central Electricity Authority - India
- Dong Bac Coal Mineral Investment Coporation - Vietnam
- European Bulk Services B.V. - Netherlands
- Posco Energy - South Korea
- Power Finance Corporation Ltd., India
- Makarim & Taira - Indonesia
- Global Coal Blending Company Limited - Australia
- Baramulti Group, Indonesia
- Interocean Group of Companies - India
- Central Java Power - Indonesia
- PetroVietnam Power Coal Import and Supply Company
- Australian Commodity Traders Exchange
- Thai Mozambique Logistica
- Tamil Nadu electricity Board
- Straits Asia Resources Limited - Singapore
- Chettinad Cement Corporation Ltd - India
- Sakthi Sugars Limited - India
- CNBM International Corporation - China
- Latin American Coal - Colombia
- Jindal Steel & Power Ltd - India
- Formosa Plastics Group - Taiwan
- Siam City Cement - Thailand
- Minerals Council of Australia
- Uttam Galva Steels Limited - India
- Jorong Barutama Greston.PT - Indonesia
- Bangladesh Power Developement Board
- Aditya Birla Group - India
- Sical Logistics Limited - India
- Parry Sugars Refinery, India
- Energy Development Corp, Philippines
- Merrill Lynch Commodities Europe
- LBH Netherlands Bv - Netherlands
- Borneo Indobara - Indonesia
- TeaM Sual Corporation - Philippines
- Independent Power Producers Association of India
- Karaikal Port Pvt Ltd - India
- Alfred C Toepfer International GmbH - Germany
- Maheswari Brothers Coal Limited - India
- Attock Cement Pakistan Limited
- SMG Consultants - Indonesia
- Kobexindo Tractors - Indoneisa
- Sree Jayajothi Cements Limited - India
- Mercuria Energy - Indonesia
- GVK Power & Infra Limited - India
- Asmin Koalindo Tuhup - Indonesia
- AsiaOL BioFuels Corp., Philippines
- Globalindo Alam Lestari - Indonesia
- Kalimantan Lumbung Energi - Indonesia
- South Luzon Thermal Energy Corporation
- Parliament of New Zealand
- Global Business Power Corporation, Philippines
- Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited - India
- The Treasury - Australian Government
- Jaiprakash Power Ventures ltd
- Medco Energi Mining Internasional
- Samtan Co., Ltd - South Korea
- Mintek Dendrill Indonesia
- Truba Alam Manunggal Engineering.Tbk - Indonesia
- Metalloyd Limited - United Kingdom
- Star Paper Mills Limited - India
- Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd - Australia
- Barasentosa Lestari - Indonesia
- Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission - India
- Savvy Resources Ltd - HongKong
- Bharathi Cement Corporation - India
- Bulk Trading Sa - Switzerland
- Heidelberg Cement - Germany
- Vijayanagar Sugar Pvt Ltd - India
|
| |
| |
|
