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.
|
|
Wednesday, 29 October 14
GOOD REASON WHY Q4 CAPESIZE OUTLOOK WAS SO BULLISH AT START OF THE YEAR - COMMODORE RESEARCH
COALspot.com: There was good reason why so many analysts' capesize outlook for Q4 was so very strong at the start of this year. Brazilian ...
Tuesday, 28 October 14
SGX'S FOB RICHARDS BAY COAL SWAP FOR DELIVERY Q1' 2015 CLOSED AT $ 68.07 ON 24 OCT
COALspot.com: API 4 FOB Richards Bay coal swap for Q4’ 2014 delivery decreased US$ 0.65 (-0.96%) month over month and increased US$ 1.79 (+2. ...
Tuesday, 28 October 14
SUB-BIT FOB INDONESIA COAL SWAP FOR Q1' 15 DELIVERY CLOSED 3.68% LOWER MONTH ON MONTH
COALspot.com: Indonesian coal swaps for delivery Q4' 2014 lost month on month and gained day on day and week on week.
The swap has lost US ...
Monday, 27 October 14
GOVT PROMISES TO EASE LICENSING PROCEDURES IN MINING SECTOR - THE JAKARTA POST
The Energy and Mineral Resources Ministry’s directorate general for mineral and coal plans to simplify the complicated licensing procedures i ...
Monday, 27 October 14
FOB NEWCASTLE COAL SWAP FOR Q1' 15 DELIVERY CLOSED $ 0.10 LESSER THAN Q4' 14 CLOSING OF $ 53.27 PMT
COALspot.com: API 5 FOB Newcastle Coal swap for Q4’ 2014 delivery decreased US$ 1.43 (-2.61%) month over month and increased US$ 0.05 (+0.09% ...
|
|
|
Showing 3406 to 3410 news of total 6871 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
 |
|
|
| |
|
- Directorate Of Revenue Intelligence - India
- Miang Besar Coal Terminal - Indonesia
- Bharathi Cement Corporation - India
- Tata Chemicals Ltd - India
- Ceylon Electricity Board - Sri Lanka
- Makarim & Taira - Indonesia
- White Energy Company Limited
- Bhoruka Overseas - Indonesia
- Antam Resourcindo - Indonesia
- Eastern Coal Council - USA
- Karaikal Port Pvt Ltd - India
- Formosa Plastics Group - Taiwan
- SMC Global Power, Philippines
- Indika Energy - Indonesia
- Coalindo Energy - Indonesia
- GAC Shipping (India) Pvt Ltd
- Global Green Power PLC Corporation, Philippines
- Commonwealth Bank - Australia
- India Bulls Power Limited - India
- Africa Commodities Group - South Africa
- Bahari Cakrawala Sebuku - Indonesia
- Offshore Bulk Terminal Pte Ltd, Singapore
- Orica Australia Pty. Ltd.
- Simpson Spence & Young - Indonesia
- Indian Energy Exchange, India
- Kideco Jaya Agung - Indonesia
- Coastal Gujarat Power Limited - India
- PNOC Exploration Corporation - Philippines
- Cement Manufacturers Association - India
- Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd - Australia
- Indian Oil Corporation Limited
- Chamber of Mines of South Africa
- Altura Mining Limited, Indonesia
- Edison Trading Spa - Italy
- ICICI Bank Limited - India
- The State Trading Corporation of India Ltd
- Riau Bara Harum - Indonesia
- Energy Development Corp, Philippines
- Deloitte Consulting - India
- Central Electricity Authority - India
- Bhatia International Limited - India
- Bukit Baiduri Energy - Indonesia
- Rio Tinto Coal - Australia
- Merrill Lynch Commodities Europe
- Jaiprakash Power Ventures ltd
- Pendopo Energi Batubara - Indonesia
- Sarangani Energy Corporation, Philippines
- Lanco Infratech Ltd - India
- Gujarat Mineral Development Corp Ltd - India
- Iligan Light & Power Inc, Philippines
- Globalindo Alam Lestari - Indonesia
- Ministry of Finance - Indonesia
- Australian Commodity Traders Exchange
- Sinarmas Energy and Mining - Indonesia
- Aditya Birla Group - India
- Marubeni Corporation - India
- Australian Coal Association
- New Zealand Coal & Carbon
- Kobexindo Tractors - Indoneisa
- MS Steel International - UAE
- Kumho Petrochemical, South Korea
- Tamil Nadu electricity Board
- Ministry of Transport, Egypt
- Jorong Barutama Greston.PT - Indonesia
- Krishnapatnam Port Company Ltd. - India
- Binh Thuan Hamico - Vietnam
- Baramulti Group, Indonesia
- TNB Fuel Sdn Bhd - Malaysia
- Chettinad Cement Corporation Ltd - India
- Meralco Power Generation, Philippines
- GVK Power & Infra Limited - India
- Videocon Industries ltd - India
- OPG Power Generation Pvt Ltd - India
- Directorate General of MIneral and Coal - Indonesia
- IEA Clean Coal Centre - UK
- Carbofer General Trading SA - India
- Bukit Makmur.PT - Indonesia
- Mjunction Services Limited - India
- Kalimantan Lumbung Energi - Indonesia
- Romanian Commodities Exchange
- Vijayanagar Sugar Pvt Ltd - India
- Aboitiz Power Corporation - Philippines
- SMG Consultants - Indonesia
- Wilmar Investment Holdings
- Uttam Galva Steels Limited - India
- Trasteel International SA, Italy
- Interocean Group of Companies - India
- Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd, - India
- Global Coal Blending Company Limited - Australia
- Straits Asia Resources Limited - Singapore
- Truba Alam Manunggal Engineering.Tbk - Indonesia
- South Luzon Thermal Energy Corporation
- Samtan Co., Ltd - South Korea
- Salva Resources Pvt Ltd - India
- Ministry of Mines - Canada
- European Bulk Services B.V. - Netherlands
- TeaM Sual Corporation - Philippines
- Power Finance Corporation Ltd., India
- Thiess Contractors Indonesia
- Siam City Cement PLC, Thailand
- San Jose City I Power Corp, Philippines
- Sree Jayajothi Cements Limited - India
- Cigading International Bulk Terminal - Indonesia
- Bhushan Steel Limited - India
- Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission - India
- GMR Energy Limited - India
- Larsen & Toubro Limited - India
- Gujarat Sidhee Cement - India
- Manunggal Multi Energi - Indonesia
- Karbindo Abesyapradhi - Indoneisa
- VISA Power Limited - India
- Grasim Industreis Ltd - India
- Renaissance Capital - South Africa
- Wood Mackenzie - Singapore
- The University of Queensland
- Semirara Mining and Power Corporation, Philippines
- Kapuas Tunggal Persada - Indonesia
- Central Java Power - Indonesia
- Kartika Selabumi Mining - Indonesia
- Sojitz Corporation - Japan
- The Treasury - Australian Government
- SN Aboitiz Power Inc, Philippines
- Energy Link Ltd, New Zealand
- Kohat Cement Company Ltd. - Pakistan
- Singapore Mercantile Exchange
- Georgia Ports Authority, United States
- Madhucon Powers Ltd - India
- Xindia Steels Limited - India
- Petron Corporation, Philippines
- International Coal Ventures Pvt Ltd - India
- Jindal Steel & Power Ltd - India
- Kepco SPC Power Corporation, Philippines
- Ind-Barath Power Infra Limited - India
- Sakthi Sugars Limited - India
- Thai Mozambique Logistica
- PowerSource Philippines DevCo
- Asia Pacific Energy Resources Ventures Inc, Philippines
- CIMB Investment Bank - Malaysia
- Eastern Energy - Thailand
- Metalloyd Limited - United Kingdom
- Bank of Tokyo Mitsubishi UFJ Ltd
- Holcim Trading Pte Ltd - Singapore
- Anglo American - United Kingdom
- GN Power Mariveles Coal Plant, Philippines
- Port Waratah Coal Services - Australia
- Mercuria Energy - Indonesia
- Dong Bac Coal Mineral Investment Coporation - Vietnam
- Vedanta Resources Plc - India
- Medco Energi Mining Internasional
- Attock Cement Pakistan Limited
- Indo Tambangraya Megah - Indonesia
- IHS Mccloskey Coal Group - USA
- Indogreen Group - Indonesia
- ASAPP Information Group - India
- Malabar Cements Ltd - India
- Coal and Oil Company - UAE
- Semirara Mining Corp, Philippines
- Standard Chartered Bank - UAE
- Vizag Seaport Private Limited - India
- Economic Council, Georgia
- Dalmia Cement Bharat India
- Orica Mining Services - Indonesia
- Latin American Coal - Colombia
- Sical Logistics Limited - India
- Planning Commission, India
- Bukit Asam (Persero) Tbk - Indonesia
- McConnell Dowell - Australia
- Mercator Lines Limited - India
- Indonesian Coal Mining Association
- Asmin Koalindo Tuhup - Indonesia
- Ambuja Cements Ltd - India
- Meenaskhi Energy Private Limited - India
- Independent Power Producers Association of India
- Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand
- CNBM International Corporation - China
- Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission - India
- Bulk Trading Sa - Switzerland
- Parliament of New Zealand
- Essar Steel Hazira Ltd - India
- Maheswari Brothers Coal Limited - India
- Petrochimia International Co. Ltd.- Taiwan
- Billiton Holdings Pty Ltd - Australia
- Dr Ramakrishna Prasad Power Pvt Ltd - India
- Electricity Authority, New Zealand
- Agrawal Coal Company - India
- PTC India Limited - India
- Goldman Sachs - Singapore
- Therma Luzon, Inc, Philippines
- Banpu Public Company Limited - Thailand
- Bangladesh Power Developement Board
- Oldendorff Carriers - Singapore
- Borneo Indobara - Indonesia
- Mintek Dendrill Indonesia
- Intertek Mineral Services - Indonesia
- Siam City Cement - Thailand
- Toyota Tsusho Corporation, Japan
- Global Business Power Corporation, Philippines
- Filglen & Citicon Mining (HK) Ltd - Hong Kong
- Barasentosa Lestari - Indonesia
- Savvy Resources Ltd - HongKong
- Parry Sugars Refinery, India
- Minerals Council of Australia
- AsiaOL BioFuels Corp., Philippines
- Heidelberg Cement - Germany
- Star Paper Mills Limited - India
- Bayan Resources Tbk. - Indonesia
- Kaltim Prima Coal - Indonesia
- Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited - India
- LBH Netherlands Bv - Netherlands
- Posco Energy - South Korea
- Timah Investasi Mineral - Indoneisa
- Pipit Mutiara Jaya. PT, Indonesia
- Sindya Power Generating Company Private Ltd
- London Commodity Brokers - England
- PetroVietnam Power Coal Import and Supply Company
- Price Waterhouse Coopers - Russia
- Alfred C Toepfer International GmbH - Germany
|
| |
| |
|
