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, 15 October 14
SHIPOWNER NOT LIABLE FOR CARGO DAMAGE RESULTING FROM POOR STOWAGE - CLYDE & CO
KNOWLEDGE TO ELEVATE
Russian metal trading company Yuzhny Zavod Metall Profil (YZMP), the holder of a CONGEN 1994 bill of lading, took delivery o ...
Wednesday, 15 October 14
NEWCASTLE SHIPPED 13.96 MILLION TONS OF COAL IN SEPTEMBER; UP 5.72%
COALspot.com: The Port of Newcastle, Australia’s major trading ports and the world’s largest coal export port, has shipped $1,227.7 wor ...
Tuesday, 14 October 14
KING COAL UNDER ATTACK? - EVA TZIMA
With the last quarter of the year being well underway and with no strong signs that the Dry Bulk market could be ready for a big positive reversal, ...
Tuesday, 14 October 14
THE NEW CHINESE TRANSPORTATION TAX LAW: WHAT DOES IT MEAN FOR GREEK SHIPPING? - DELOITTE
China has recently promulgated a new law which imposes tax on profits from freights of inbound routes. The objective of the new tax law titled &ldq ...
Monday, 13 October 14
CHINESE COAL IMPORT TARIFFS YET ANOTHER BLOW TO AUSTRALIAN COAL EXPORTS - TIM BUCKLEY
COALspot.com: China’s unexpected move to reintroduce thermal coal import tariffs of 6% will have a materially negative impact on the viabilit ...
|
|
|
Showing 3431 to 3435 news of total 6871 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
 |
|
|
| |
|
- Bhatia International Limited - India
- Meralco Power Generation, Philippines
- Tata Chemicals Ltd - India
- Central Electricity Authority - India
- Carbofer General Trading SA - India
- Vijayanagar Sugar Pvt Ltd - India
- Goldman Sachs - Singapore
- Wood Mackenzie - Singapore
- Power Finance Corporation Ltd., India
- Sarangani Energy Corporation, Philippines
- Port Waratah Coal Services - Australia
- Madhucon Powers Ltd - India
- Medco Energi Mining Internasional
- Sree Jayajothi Cements Limited - India
- Makarim & Taira - Indonesia
- Asia Pacific Energy Resources Ventures Inc, Philippines
- Posco Energy - South Korea
- Mintek Dendrill Indonesia
- Cigading International Bulk Terminal - Indonesia
- Straits Asia Resources Limited - Singapore
- Bulk Trading Sa - Switzerland
- Economic Council, Georgia
- GN Power Mariveles Coal Plant, Philippines
- Merrill Lynch Commodities Europe
- Filglen & Citicon Mining (HK) Ltd - Hong Kong
- ASAPP Information Group - India
- Baramulti Group, Indonesia
- Coal and Oil Company - UAE
- Edison Trading Spa - Italy
- Kepco SPC Power Corporation, Philippines
- Bukit Baiduri Energy - Indonesia
- Energy Development Corp, Philippines
- London Commodity Brokers - England
- Manunggal Multi Energi - Indonesia
- Oldendorff Carriers - Singapore
- Kaltim Prima Coal - Indonesia
- San Jose City I Power Corp, Philippines
- Minerals Council of Australia
- GAC Shipping (India) Pvt Ltd
- Petrochimia International Co. Ltd.- Taiwan
- Therma Luzon, Inc, Philippines
- Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission - India
- Ambuja Cements Ltd - India
- Mercator Lines Limited - India
- Grasim Industreis Ltd - India
- Kobexindo Tractors - Indoneisa
- Indian Energy Exchange, India
- Alfred C Toepfer International GmbH - Germany
- Marubeni Corporation - India
- Vedanta Resources Plc - India
- Bukit Asam (Persero) Tbk - Indonesia
- Sakthi Sugars Limited - India
- Banpu Public Company Limited - Thailand
- Indonesian Coal Mining Association
- Parry Sugars Refinery, India
- Siam City Cement PLC, Thailand
- AsiaOL BioFuels Corp., Philippines
- GVK Power & Infra Limited - India
- Karbindo Abesyapradhi - Indoneisa
- Ind-Barath Power Infra Limited - India
- Global Business Power Corporation, Philippines
- Toyota Tsusho Corporation, Japan
- Directorate Of Revenue Intelligence - India
- Ministry of Transport, Egypt
- Bangladesh Power Developement Board
- Jaiprakash Power Ventures ltd
- SMG Consultants - Indonesia
- Sical Logistics Limited - India
- Agrawal Coal Company - India
- Malabar Cements Ltd - India
- Georgia Ports Authority, United States
- Trasteel International SA, Italy
- Cement Manufacturers Association - India
- MS Steel International - UAE
- SN Aboitiz Power Inc, Philippines
- Mjunction Services Limited - India
- Kumho Petrochemical, South Korea
- Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited - India
- Miang Besar Coal Terminal - Indonesia
- Bukit Makmur.PT - Indonesia
- Xindia Steels Limited - India
- Orica Australia Pty. Ltd.
- Heidelberg Cement - Germany
- Kartika Selabumi Mining - Indonesia
- Semirara Mining and Power Corporation, Philippines
- Energy Link Ltd, New Zealand
- Bhushan Steel Limited - India
- India Bulls Power Limited - India
- Anglo American - United Kingdom
- Jorong Barutama Greston.PT - Indonesia
- GMR Energy Limited - India
- Bahari Cakrawala Sebuku - Indonesia
- Pipit Mutiara Jaya. PT, Indonesia
- Romanian Commodities Exchange
- Renaissance Capital - South Africa
- Videocon Industries ltd - India
- ICICI Bank Limited - India
- Essar Steel Hazira Ltd - India
- Thai Mozambique Logistica
- Intertek Mineral Services - Indonesia
- Salva Resources Pvt Ltd - India
- Coalindo Energy - Indonesia
- Indian Oil Corporation Limited
- Samtan Co., Ltd - South Korea
- Bhoruka Overseas - Indonesia
- Kideco Jaya Agung - Indonesia
- Formosa Plastics Group - Taiwan
- PowerSource Philippines DevCo
- Global Coal Blending Company Limited - Australia
- Iligan Light & Power Inc, Philippines
- Vizag Seaport Private Limited - India
- Chettinad Cement Corporation Ltd - India
- Lanco Infratech Ltd - India
- Dr Ramakrishna Prasad Power Pvt Ltd - India
- Bayan Resources Tbk. - Indonesia
- Borneo Indobara - Indonesia
- Sinarmas Energy and Mining - Indonesia
- Chamber of Mines of South Africa
- The University of Queensland
- Dalmia Cement Bharat India
- IEA Clean Coal Centre - UK
- VISA Power Limited - India
- Rio Tinto Coal - Australia
- Sojitz Corporation - Japan
- Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd, - India
- Aditya Birla Group - India
- Gujarat Sidhee Cement - India
- Antam Resourcindo - Indonesia
- Planning Commission, India
- International Coal Ventures Pvt Ltd - India
- Dong Bac Coal Mineral Investment Coporation - Vietnam
- Ceylon Electricity Board - Sri Lanka
- Orica Mining Services - Indonesia
- Kapuas Tunggal Persada - Indonesia
- Siam City Cement - Thailand
- Binh Thuan Hamico - Vietnam
- Karaikal Port Pvt Ltd - India
- Singapore Mercantile Exchange
- Independent Power Producers Association of India
- White Energy Company Limited
- Aboitiz Power Corporation - Philippines
- Coastal Gujarat Power Limited - India
- Asmin Koalindo Tuhup - Indonesia
- Simpson Spence & Young - Indonesia
- Krishnapatnam Port Company Ltd. - India
- New Zealand Coal & Carbon
- Central Java Power - Indonesia
- IHS Mccloskey Coal Group - USA
- Directorate General of MIneral and Coal - Indonesia
- Petron Corporation, Philippines
- The Treasury - Australian Government
- Maheswari Brothers Coal Limited - India
- Eastern Coal Council - USA
- SMC Global Power, Philippines
- Electricity Authority, New Zealand
- Sindya Power Generating Company Private Ltd
- European Bulk Services B.V. - Netherlands
- Ministry of Mines - Canada
- Truba Alam Manunggal Engineering.Tbk - Indonesia
- Metalloyd Limited - United Kingdom
- Kalimantan Lumbung Energi - Indonesia
- The State Trading Corporation of India Ltd
- Deloitte Consulting - India
- Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand
- PTC India Limited - India
- Wilmar Investment Holdings
- Mercuria Energy - Indonesia
- PetroVietnam Power Coal Import and Supply Company
- South Luzon Thermal Energy Corporation
- Indika Energy - Indonesia
- PNOC Exploration Corporation - Philippines
- Indo Tambangraya Megah - Indonesia
- Parliament of New Zealand
- Timah Investasi Mineral - Indoneisa
- Billiton Holdings Pty Ltd - Australia
- Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission - India
- Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd - Australia
- Offshore Bulk Terminal Pte Ltd, Singapore
- Kohat Cement Company Ltd. - Pakistan
- Attock Cement Pakistan Limited
- Meenaskhi Energy Private Limited - India
- Pendopo Energi Batubara - Indonesia
- Jindal Steel & Power Ltd - India
- Globalindo Alam Lestari - Indonesia
- Africa Commodities Group - South Africa
- McConnell Dowell - Australia
- Eastern Energy - Thailand
- Gujarat Mineral Development Corp Ltd - India
- TNB Fuel Sdn Bhd - Malaysia
- Barasentosa Lestari - Indonesia
- Semirara Mining Corp, Philippines
- Bank of Tokyo Mitsubishi UFJ Ltd
- Interocean Group of Companies - India
- Bharathi Cement Corporation - India
- Uttam Galva Steels Limited - India
- Global Green Power PLC Corporation, Philippines
- Commonwealth Bank - Australia
- Altura Mining Limited, Indonesia
- TeaM Sual Corporation - Philippines
- CIMB Investment Bank - Malaysia
- LBH Netherlands Bv - Netherlands
- Larsen & Toubro Limited - India
- CNBM International Corporation - China
- Savvy Resources Ltd - HongKong
- Ministry of Finance - Indonesia
- Indogreen Group - Indonesia
- Standard Chartered Bank - UAE
- Australian Coal Association
- Australian Commodity Traders Exchange
- OPG Power Generation Pvt Ltd - India
- Price Waterhouse Coopers - Russia
- Riau Bara Harum - Indonesia
- Star Paper Mills Limited - India
- Holcim Trading Pte Ltd - Singapore
- Thiess Contractors Indonesia
- Tamil Nadu electricity Board
- Latin American Coal - Colombia
|
| |
| |
|
