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.
|
|
Monday, 27 October 14
CFR SOUTH CHINA COAL SWAPS PERFORMED POSITIVE THIS PAST WEEK
COALspot.com: API 8 CFR South China Coal swap for Q4’ 2014 delivery decreased US$ 1.68 (-2.55%) month over month and increased US$ 0.87 (+1.3 ...
Sunday, 26 October 14
CAPE'S STRONG PERFORMANCE PUSHES BDI INDEX UPWARDS
COALspot.com: The BDI was up by 26.27 pct and closed at 1192 points week and week. The Cape size performance has pushed up BDI and Cape size index ...
Friday, 24 October 14
WEEKLY U.S COAL PRODUCTION DOWN 2.7% FOR THE WEEK ENDING OCTOBER 18
COALspot.com – United States the world's one of largest coal producers, produced approximately 18.7 million short tons (mmst) of coal in ...
Thursday, 23 October 14
THE BEARS, HOWEVER, STILL CRY; FOR HOW LONG WILL IT LAST? - FEARNLEYS
Handy
"We experience a typical oversupply of ships in the Atlantic which causing rates to slide. In the USG it is just enough cargoes to kee ...
Wednesday, 22 October 14
MARKET INSIGHT - THEODORE NTALAKOS, INTERMODAL
ECO designs - revisited
The ECO vessels are already here but the oil and bunker prices are plummeting to their cheapest level since 2010. Is this ...
|
|
|
Showing 3411 to 3415 news of total 6871 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
 |
|
|
| |
|
- New Zealand Coal & Carbon
- Kideco Jaya Agung - Indonesia
- Billiton Holdings Pty Ltd - Australia
- Karaikal Port Pvt Ltd - India
- Parliament of New Zealand
- Binh Thuan Hamico - Vietnam
- Australian Commodity Traders Exchange
- Singapore Mercantile Exchange
- PetroVietnam Power Coal Import and Supply Company
- Kalimantan Lumbung Energi - Indonesia
- IHS Mccloskey Coal Group - USA
- Pipit Mutiara Jaya. PT, Indonesia
- Goldman Sachs - Singapore
- McConnell Dowell - Australia
- Coalindo Energy - Indonesia
- Merrill Lynch Commodities Europe
- Rio Tinto Coal - Australia
- Holcim Trading Pte Ltd - Singapore
- Alfred C Toepfer International GmbH - Germany
- Ministry of Finance - Indonesia
- Bhatia International Limited - India
- Siam City Cement - Thailand
- Global Business Power Corporation, Philippines
- Bhoruka Overseas - Indonesia
- Straits Asia Resources Limited - Singapore
- TeaM Sual Corporation - Philippines
- Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited - India
- Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd - Australia
- Independent Power Producers Association of India
- Mintek Dendrill Indonesia
- Xindia Steels Limited - India
- ICICI Bank Limited - India
- Vijayanagar Sugar Pvt Ltd - India
- Romanian Commodities Exchange
- Kaltim Prima Coal - Indonesia
- Trasteel International SA, Italy
- Bukit Makmur.PT - Indonesia
- Bank of Tokyo Mitsubishi UFJ Ltd
- Coal and Oil Company - UAE
- Essar Steel Hazira Ltd - India
- Agrawal Coal Company - India
- Malabar Cements Ltd - India
- Altura Mining Limited, Indonesia
- The State Trading Corporation of India Ltd
- Aditya Birla Group - India
- Directorate Of Revenue Intelligence - India
- Edison Trading Spa - Italy
- Therma Luzon, Inc, Philippines
- Interocean Group of Companies - India
- Jorong Barutama Greston.PT - Indonesia
- Bhushan Steel Limited - India
- Timah Investasi Mineral - Indoneisa
- Tamil Nadu electricity Board
- Kohat Cement Company Ltd. - Pakistan
- Port Waratah Coal Services - Australia
- Commonwealth Bank - Australia
- CNBM International Corporation - China
- Formosa Plastics Group - Taiwan
- Marubeni Corporation - India
- Petrochimia International Co. Ltd.- Taiwan
- Coastal Gujarat Power Limited - India
- Tata Chemicals Ltd - India
- Iligan Light & Power Inc, Philippines
- GN Power Mariveles Coal Plant, Philippines
- Dalmia Cement Bharat India
- GMR Energy Limited - India
- Salva Resources Pvt Ltd - India
- Jaiprakash Power Ventures ltd
- Indonesian Coal Mining Association
- Mercator Lines Limited - India
- Australian Coal Association
- Orica Mining Services - Indonesia
- Savvy Resources Ltd - HongKong
- Bulk Trading Sa - Switzerland
- Meralco Power Generation, Philippines
- LBH Netherlands Bv - Netherlands
- White Energy Company Limited
- Bangladesh Power Developement Board
- Cigading International Bulk Terminal - Indonesia
- Minerals Council of Australia
- Latin American Coal - Colombia
- Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission - India
- Intertek Mineral Services - Indonesia
- Madhucon Powers Ltd - India
- Gujarat Sidhee Cement - India
- OPG Power Generation Pvt Ltd - India
- London Commodity Brokers - England
- IEA Clean Coal Centre - UK
- Bharathi Cement Corporation - India
- Indogreen Group - Indonesia
- Central Java Power - Indonesia
- Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand
- Mjunction Services Limited - India
- Star Paper Mills Limited - India
- Banpu Public Company Limited - Thailand
- SMC Global Power, Philippines
- Directorate General of MIneral and Coal - Indonesia
- Sakthi Sugars Limited - India
- Dong Bac Coal Mineral Investment Coporation - Vietnam
- Posco Energy - South Korea
- Bahari Cakrawala Sebuku - Indonesia
- Georgia Ports Authority, United States
- Price Waterhouse Coopers - Russia
- Energy Development Corp, Philippines
- Indika Energy - Indonesia
- Samtan Co., Ltd - South Korea
- The University of Queensland
- Sarangani Energy Corporation, Philippines
- Meenaskhi Energy Private Limited - India
- Ceylon Electricity Board - Sri Lanka
- PowerSource Philippines DevCo
- Cement Manufacturers Association - India
- South Luzon Thermal Energy Corporation
- Larsen & Toubro Limited - India
- Eastern Energy - Thailand
- India Bulls Power Limited - India
- Orica Australia Pty. Ltd.
- Globalindo Alam Lestari - Indonesia
- Heidelberg Cement - Germany
- Aboitiz Power Corporation - Philippines
- Dr Ramakrishna Prasad Power Pvt Ltd - India
- Antam Resourcindo - Indonesia
- Truba Alam Manunggal Engineering.Tbk - Indonesia
- Sical Logistics Limited - India
- Bukit Baiduri Energy - Indonesia
- ASAPP Information Group - India
- GAC Shipping (India) Pvt Ltd
- Planning Commission, India
- Deloitte Consulting - India
- Jindal Steel & Power Ltd - India
- Semirara Mining Corp, Philippines
- Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd, - India
- Chettinad Cement Corporation Ltd - India
- Riau Bara Harum - Indonesia
- Kapuas Tunggal Persada - Indonesia
- Vedanta Resources Plc - India
- Sindya Power Generating Company Private Ltd
- SMG Consultants - Indonesia
- The Treasury - Australian Government
- Ambuja Cements Ltd - India
- Thai Mozambique Logistica
- Ministry of Transport, Egypt
- Global Coal Blending Company Limited - Australia
- GVK Power & Infra Limited - India
- Borneo Indobara - Indonesia
- Ind-Barath Power Infra Limited - India
- Kartika Selabumi Mining - Indonesia
- Sinarmas Energy and Mining - Indonesia
- Semirara Mining and Power Corporation, Philippines
- Standard Chartered Bank - UAE
- Global Green Power PLC Corporation, Philippines
- Africa Commodities Group - South Africa
- Asmin Koalindo Tuhup - Indonesia
- Sojitz Corporation - Japan
- Offshore Bulk Terminal Pte Ltd, Singapore
- Thiess Contractors Indonesia
- Filglen & Citicon Mining (HK) Ltd - Hong Kong
- Videocon Industries ltd - India
- PTC India Limited - India
- Pendopo Energi Batubara - Indonesia
- Renaissance Capital - South Africa
- Parry Sugars Refinery, India
- Indian Oil Corporation Limited
- Vizag Seaport Private Limited - India
- Metalloyd Limited - United Kingdom
- Mercuria Energy - Indonesia
- Grasim Industreis Ltd - India
- SN Aboitiz Power Inc, Philippines
- Energy Link Ltd, New Zealand
- AsiaOL BioFuels Corp., Philippines
- VISA Power Limited - India
- Indian Energy Exchange, India
- Lanco Infratech Ltd - India
- Oldendorff Carriers - Singapore
- Krishnapatnam Port Company Ltd. - India
- Miang Besar Coal Terminal - Indonesia
- Attock Cement Pakistan Limited
- International Coal Ventures Pvt Ltd - India
- Barasentosa Lestari - Indonesia
- Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission - India
- European Bulk Services B.V. - Netherlands
- TNB Fuel Sdn Bhd - Malaysia
- MS Steel International - UAE
- Carbofer General Trading SA - India
- Manunggal Multi Energi - Indonesia
- Wilmar Investment Holdings
- Anglo American - United Kingdom
- Maheswari Brothers Coal Limited - India
- Kobexindo Tractors - Indoneisa
- Sree Jayajothi Cements Limited - India
- Indo Tambangraya Megah - Indonesia
- Baramulti Group, Indonesia
- Petron Corporation, Philippines
- Eastern Coal Council - USA
- Uttam Galva Steels Limited - India
- CIMB Investment Bank - Malaysia
- Central Electricity Authority - India
- Wood Mackenzie - Singapore
- Simpson Spence & Young - Indonesia
- PNOC Exploration Corporation - Philippines
- Ministry of Mines - Canada
- Kumho Petrochemical, South Korea
- Bayan Resources Tbk. - Indonesia
- Chamber of Mines of South Africa
- Power Finance Corporation Ltd., India
- Electricity Authority, New Zealand
- San Jose City I Power Corp, Philippines
- Bukit Asam (Persero) Tbk - Indonesia
- Economic Council, Georgia
- Karbindo Abesyapradhi - Indoneisa
- Medco Energi Mining Internasional
- Asia Pacific Energy Resources Ventures Inc, Philippines
- Toyota Tsusho Corporation, Japan
- Kepco SPC Power Corporation, Philippines
- Gujarat Mineral Development Corp Ltd - India
- Siam City Cement PLC, Thailand
- Makarim & Taira - Indonesia
|
| |
| |
|
