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, 22 October 14
CAPESIZE MARKET REMAINED UNDER PRESSURE
COALspot.com: The Dry Bulk market closed on the red for yet another week although following Friday sentiment has started to improve on the back of ...
Tuesday, 21 October 14
INDIA'S DIESEL DEREGULATION POSITIVE FOR OIL COMPANIES - FITCH
The Indian government's 18 October decision to deregulate diesel prices will have a positive effect on the national oil marketing companies tha ...
Tuesday, 21 October 14
LOW DEMAND PUTTING COAL SWAPS UNDER PRESSURE
COALspot.com: Indonesian coal swaps for delivery Q4' 2014 lost on day, week and month.
The swap has lost US$ 1.57 (-3.04%) month on month ...
Monday, 20 October 14
CHINA'S ENVIRONMENTAL POLICIES DO NOT SPELL THE END FOR COAL - WOOD MACKENZIE
China's environmental policies do not spell the end for coal Analysis across energy commodities show coal still accounting for 64% of power mix ...
Monday, 20 October 14
CFR SOUTH CHINA COAL SWAPS FAILED TO PERFORM POSITIVE
COALspot.com: API 8 CFR South China Coal swap for Q4’ 2014 delivery decreased US$ 3.04 (-4.57%) month over month and US$ 1.75 (-2.68%) week o ...
|
|
|
Showing 3416 to 3420 news of total 6871 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
 |
|
|
| |
|
- Cement Manufacturers Association - India
- Miang Besar Coal Terminal - Indonesia
- Ministry of Mines - Canada
- Indonesian Coal Mining Association
- Kohat Cement Company Ltd. - Pakistan
- Africa Commodities Group - South Africa
- Tata Chemicals Ltd - India
- Savvy Resources Ltd - HongKong
- Coalindo Energy - Indonesia
- Directorate Of Revenue Intelligence - India
- Gujarat Mineral Development Corp Ltd - India
- Bhatia International Limited - India
- Commonwealth Bank - Australia
- Ambuja Cements Ltd - India
- Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission - India
- Simpson Spence & Young - Indonesia
- Salva Resources Pvt Ltd - India
- Asia Pacific Energy Resources Ventures Inc, Philippines
- Chettinad Cement Corporation Ltd - India
- Latin American Coal - Colombia
- Wood Mackenzie - Singapore
- Indogreen Group - Indonesia
- Maheswari Brothers Coal Limited - India
- Karaikal Port Pvt Ltd - India
- GVK Power & Infra Limited - India
- Mercuria Energy - Indonesia
- Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand
- Deloitte Consulting - India
- Parry Sugars Refinery, India
- Indo Tambangraya Megah - Indonesia
- Ind-Barath Power Infra Limited - India
- Kideco Jaya Agung - Indonesia
- Baramulti Group, Indonesia
- Eastern Coal Council - USA
- Mintek Dendrill Indonesia
- Binh Thuan Hamico - Vietnam
- Bharathi Cement Corporation - India
- Sree Jayajothi Cements Limited - India
- Sinarmas Energy and Mining - Indonesia
- The State Trading Corporation of India Ltd
- Aboitiz Power Corporation - Philippines
- India Bulls Power Limited - India
- South Luzon Thermal Energy Corporation
- Vizag Seaport Private Limited - India
- PowerSource Philippines DevCo
- VISA Power Limited - India
- Sical Logistics Limited - India
- Coastal Gujarat Power Limited - India
- Krishnapatnam Port Company Ltd. - India
- Kobexindo Tractors - Indoneisa
- Thai Mozambique Logistica
- Uttam Galva Steels Limited - India
- Heidelberg Cement - Germany
- Manunggal Multi Energi - Indonesia
- Banpu Public Company Limited - Thailand
- Trasteel International SA, Italy
- Interocean Group of Companies - India
- Marubeni Corporation - India
- Jindal Steel & Power Ltd - India
- Star Paper Mills Limited - India
- Timah Investasi Mineral - Indoneisa
- Orica Mining Services - Indonesia
- The University of Queensland
- Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited - India
- MS Steel International - UAE
- GN Power Mariveles Coal Plant, Philippines
- Cigading International Bulk Terminal - Indonesia
- TeaM Sual Corporation - Philippines
- Bhushan Steel Limited - India
- Essar Steel Hazira Ltd - India
- Altura Mining Limited, Indonesia
- Power Finance Corporation Ltd., India
- Samtan Co., Ltd - South Korea
- CIMB Investment Bank - Malaysia
- Ministry of Finance - Indonesia
- Ministry of Transport, Egypt
- Economic Council, Georgia
- Bukit Makmur.PT - Indonesia
- Port Waratah Coal Services - Australia
- Offshore Bulk Terminal Pte Ltd, Singapore
- Pipit Mutiara Jaya. PT, Indonesia
- Electricity Authority, New Zealand
- Malabar Cements Ltd - India
- Jaiprakash Power Ventures ltd
- Vijayanagar Sugar Pvt Ltd - India
- Independent Power Producers Association of India
- Toyota Tsusho Corporation, Japan
- Madhucon Powers Ltd - India
- Petrochimia International Co. Ltd.- Taiwan
- AsiaOL BioFuels Corp., Philippines
- Grasim Industreis Ltd - India
- Jorong Barutama Greston.PT - Indonesia
- Globalindo Alam Lestari - Indonesia
- Holcim Trading Pte Ltd - Singapore
- Medco Energi Mining Internasional
- Bukit Baiduri Energy - Indonesia
- Kaltim Prima Coal - Indonesia
- Kalimantan Lumbung Energi - Indonesia
- Kepco SPC Power Corporation, Philippines
- Carbofer General Trading SA - India
- McConnell Dowell - Australia
- TNB Fuel Sdn Bhd - Malaysia
- GMR Energy Limited - India
- Merrill Lynch Commodities Europe
- Chamber of Mines of South Africa
- New Zealand Coal & Carbon
- Parliament of New Zealand
- Intertek Mineral Services - Indonesia
- International Coal Ventures Pvt Ltd - India
- London Commodity Brokers - England
- Dr Ramakrishna Prasad Power Pvt Ltd - India
- Barasentosa Lestari - Indonesia
- Australian Commodity Traders Exchange
- Formosa Plastics Group - Taiwan
- Siam City Cement PLC, Thailand
- European Bulk Services B.V. - Netherlands
- Energy Link Ltd, New Zealand
- Meralco Power Generation, Philippines
- Iligan Light & Power Inc, Philippines
- Vedanta Resources Plc - India
- Riau Bara Harum - Indonesia
- Bulk Trading Sa - Switzerland
- Borneo Indobara - Indonesia
- Global Coal Blending Company Limited - Australia
- Dong Bac Coal Mineral Investment Coporation - Vietnam
- SMG Consultants - Indonesia
- Semirara Mining Corp, Philippines
- Posco Energy - South Korea
- Price Waterhouse Coopers - Russia
- Filglen & Citicon Mining (HK) Ltd - Hong Kong
- Bayan Resources Tbk. - Indonesia
- Indian Energy Exchange, India
- CNBM International Corporation - China
- Eastern Energy - Thailand
- Metalloyd Limited - United Kingdom
- Romanian Commodities Exchange
- Global Business Power Corporation, Philippines
- San Jose City I Power Corp, Philippines
- Billiton Holdings Pty Ltd - Australia
- Renaissance Capital - South Africa
- Sakthi Sugars Limited - India
- Indian Oil Corporation Limited
- Xindia Steels Limited - India
- Dalmia Cement Bharat India
- Directorate General of MIneral and Coal - Indonesia
- Straits Asia Resources Limited - Singapore
- Lanco Infratech Ltd - India
- Mercator Lines Limited - India
- Bhoruka Overseas - Indonesia
- Siam City Cement - Thailand
- Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd, - India
- Goldman Sachs - Singapore
- ASAPP Information Group - India
- GAC Shipping (India) Pvt Ltd
- Bank of Tokyo Mitsubishi UFJ Ltd
- Edison Trading Spa - Italy
- Sojitz Corporation - Japan
- Antam Resourcindo - Indonesia
- PNOC Exploration Corporation - Philippines
- Kartika Selabumi Mining - Indonesia
- Semirara Mining and Power Corporation, Philippines
- Sarangani Energy Corporation, Philippines
- Kumho Petrochemical, South Korea
- Energy Development Corp, Philippines
- Australian Coal Association
- Aditya Birla Group - India
- OPG Power Generation Pvt Ltd - India
- Therma Luzon, Inc, Philippines
- Central Electricity Authority - India
- LBH Netherlands Bv - Netherlands
- Central Java Power - Indonesia
- Singapore Mercantile Exchange
- Rio Tinto Coal - Australia
- Global Green Power PLC Corporation, Philippines
- Pendopo Energi Batubara - Indonesia
- Bangladesh Power Developement Board
- Karbindo Abesyapradhi - Indoneisa
- IEA Clean Coal Centre - UK
- Georgia Ports Authority, United States
- SMC Global Power, Philippines
- Agrawal Coal Company - India
- Petron Corporation, Philippines
- Ceylon Electricity Board - Sri Lanka
- Attock Cement Pakistan Limited
- IHS Mccloskey Coal Group - USA
- Indika Energy - Indonesia
- SN Aboitiz Power Inc, Philippines
- Sindya Power Generating Company Private Ltd
- Planning Commission, India
- Anglo American - United Kingdom
- Orica Australia Pty. Ltd.
- Bukit Asam (Persero) Tbk - Indonesia
- White Energy Company Limited
- Asmin Koalindo Tuhup - Indonesia
- Standard Chartered Bank - UAE
- Kapuas Tunggal Persada - Indonesia
- Gujarat Sidhee Cement - India
- Truba Alam Manunggal Engineering.Tbk - Indonesia
- Meenaskhi Energy Private Limited - India
- Minerals Council of Australia
- Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission - India
- PetroVietnam Power Coal Import and Supply Company
- Coal and Oil Company - UAE
- Tamil Nadu electricity Board
- Makarim & Taira - Indonesia
- The Treasury - Australian Government
- PTC India Limited - India
- Bahari Cakrawala Sebuku - Indonesia
- Alfred C Toepfer International GmbH - Germany
- Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd - Australia
- Thiess Contractors Indonesia
- Larsen & Toubro Limited - India
- ICICI Bank Limited - India
- Wilmar Investment Holdings
- Videocon Industries ltd - India
- Oldendorff Carriers - Singapore
- Mjunction Services Limited - India
|
| |
| |
|
