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, 13 October 14
NEWCASTLE COAL SWAP FOR Q1' 2015 DELIVERY CLOSED AT US$ 54.92, SGX DATA SHOWS
COALspot.com: API 5 FOB Newcastle Coal swap for delivery Q4' 2014 decreased US$ 0.80 (-1.46%) month over month and US$ 0.52 (-0.95%) week over ...
Monday, 13 October 14
INDONESIAN COAL SWAPS FOR DELIVERY Q4' 2014 GAINED WEEK ON WEEK AND DAY ON DAY
COALspot.com: Indonesian coal swaps for delivery Q4' 2014 gained week on week and day on day.
The swap lost US$ 0.13 (-0.25%) month on mon ...
Monday, 13 October 14
Q1' 2015 CFR SOUTH CHINA COAL SWAP CLOSED US$ 0.31 PMT HIGHER THAN Q4' 2014 CLOSING
COALspot.com: API 8 CFR South China Coal swap for Q4’ 2014 delivery decreased US$ 0.66 (-1.00%) month over month and US$ 0.40 (-0.61%) ...
Sunday, 12 October 14
INDONESIA TO INDIA FREIGHT RATES ARE EXPECTED TO BE WEAK - VISTAAR
COALspot.com: This week all the segments softened. The BDI down 7.13 pct week on week and closed below 1000 points at 963 points.
The Cape ind ...
Saturday, 11 October 14
COAL PRODUCTION RISES ONLY SLIGHTLY AS GOVT LIMITS MINING OPERATIONS - THE JAKARTA POST
Indonesian coal production rose by only 4 percent in the first nine months of this year, a relatively low increase compared to previous years, as t ...
|
|
|
Showing 3436 to 3440 news of total 6871 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
 |
|
|
| |
|
- Petron Corporation, Philippines
- TeaM Sual Corporation - Philippines
- Coalindo Energy - Indonesia
- Filglen & Citicon Mining (HK) Ltd - Hong Kong
- Price Waterhouse Coopers - Russia
- Energy Link Ltd, New Zealand
- The University of Queensland
- Kobexindo Tractors - Indoneisa
- Siam City Cement PLC, Thailand
- Karaikal Port Pvt Ltd - India
- PNOC Exploration Corporation - Philippines
- Directorate Of Revenue Intelligence - India
- Indian Oil Corporation Limited
- Carbofer General Trading SA - India
- Binh Thuan Hamico - Vietnam
- Lanco Infratech Ltd - India
- Antam Resourcindo - Indonesia
- Jorong Barutama Greston.PT - Indonesia
- Ministry of Finance - Indonesia
- South Luzon Thermal Energy Corporation
- Banpu Public Company Limited - Thailand
- PowerSource Philippines DevCo
- Coal and Oil Company - UAE
- Indo Tambangraya Megah - Indonesia
- London Commodity Brokers - England
- Truba Alam Manunggal Engineering.Tbk - Indonesia
- Bangladesh Power Developement Board
- Timah Investasi Mineral - Indoneisa
- Bharathi Cement Corporation - India
- Toyota Tsusho Corporation, Japan
- Global Coal Blending Company Limited - Australia
- Chettinad Cement Corporation Ltd - India
- Attock Cement Pakistan Limited
- Mjunction Services Limited - India
- White Energy Company Limited
- Siam City Cement - Thailand
- Billiton Holdings Pty Ltd - Australia
- Uttam Galva Steels Limited - India
- Grasim Industreis Ltd - India
- Iligan Light & Power Inc, Philippines
- Central Electricity Authority - India
- Simpson Spence & Young - Indonesia
- Ceylon Electricity Board - Sri Lanka
- Ministry of Mines - Canada
- Orica Mining Services - Indonesia
- ASAPP Information Group - India
- Holcim Trading Pte Ltd - Singapore
- AsiaOL BioFuels Corp., Philippines
- Maheswari Brothers Coal Limited - India
- Merrill Lynch Commodities Europe
- SMG Consultants - Indonesia
- Sakthi Sugars Limited - India
- Bhatia International Limited - India
- Ind-Barath Power Infra Limited - India
- Edison Trading Spa - Italy
- Heidelberg Cement - Germany
- Wood Mackenzie - Singapore
- Makarim & Taira - Indonesia
- Central Java Power - Indonesia
- GAC Shipping (India) Pvt Ltd
- GVK Power & Infra Limited - India
- Standard Chartered Bank - UAE
- Tata Chemicals Ltd - India
- Singapore Mercantile Exchange
- Asia Pacific Energy Resources Ventures Inc, Philippines
- GMR Energy Limited - India
- Bulk Trading Sa - Switzerland
- Thai Mozambique Logistica
- Thiess Contractors Indonesia
- Mintek Dendrill Indonesia
- Miang Besar Coal Terminal - Indonesia
- OPG Power Generation Pvt Ltd - India
- Aboitiz Power Corporation - Philippines
- Wilmar Investment Holdings
- Anglo American - United Kingdom
- Latin American Coal - Colombia
- Africa Commodities Group - South Africa
- Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission - India
- Manunggal Multi Energi - Indonesia
- Baramulti Group, Indonesia
- VISA Power Limited - India
- Rio Tinto Coal - Australia
- Salva Resources Pvt Ltd - India
- Indogreen Group - Indonesia
- Larsen & Toubro Limited - India
- Economic Council, Georgia
- Bahari Cakrawala Sebuku - Indonesia
- Jindal Steel & Power Ltd - India
- Orica Australia Pty. Ltd.
- Chamber of Mines of South Africa
- Bukit Asam (Persero) Tbk - Indonesia
- Straits Asia Resources Limited - Singapore
- Karbindo Abesyapradhi - Indoneisa
- Eastern Coal Council - USA
- Oldendorff Carriers - Singapore
- Global Green Power PLC Corporation, Philippines
- Videocon Industries ltd - India
- Kumho Petrochemical, South Korea
- CNBM International Corporation - China
- Pendopo Energi Batubara - Indonesia
- Marubeni Corporation - India
- Essar Steel Hazira Ltd - India
- Barasentosa Lestari - Indonesia
- Alfred C Toepfer International GmbH - Germany
- Samtan Co., Ltd - South Korea
- Metalloyd Limited - United Kingdom
- Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand
- San Jose City I Power Corp, Philippines
- Gujarat Mineral Development Corp Ltd - India
- SN Aboitiz Power Inc, Philippines
- Interocean Group of Companies - India
- Trasteel International SA, Italy
- European Bulk Services B.V. - Netherlands
- Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission - India
- The State Trading Corporation of India Ltd
- Bukit Baiduri Energy - Indonesia
- Energy Development Corp, Philippines
- IEA Clean Coal Centre - UK
- Vizag Seaport Private Limited - India
- Therma Luzon, Inc, Philippines
- Vijayanagar Sugar Pvt Ltd - India
- Parliament of New Zealand
- Ministry of Transport, Egypt
- Sarangani Energy Corporation, Philippines
- Goldman Sachs - Singapore
- Sindya Power Generating Company Private Ltd
- International Coal Ventures Pvt Ltd - India
- Riau Bara Harum - Indonesia
- Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd, - India
- Intertek Mineral Services - Indonesia
- IHS Mccloskey Coal Group - USA
- Coastal Gujarat Power Limited - India
- Commonwealth Bank - Australia
- LBH Netherlands Bv - Netherlands
- ICICI Bank Limited - India
- Bhushan Steel Limited - India
- Australian Commodity Traders Exchange
- Aditya Birla Group - India
- Bank of Tokyo Mitsubishi UFJ Ltd
- Vedanta Resources Plc - India
- Sojitz Corporation - Japan
- Jaiprakash Power Ventures ltd
- Kepco SPC Power Corporation, Philippines
- Sinarmas Energy and Mining - Indonesia
- Directorate General of MIneral and Coal - Indonesia
- Kapuas Tunggal Persada - Indonesia
- Indian Energy Exchange, India
- India Bulls Power Limited - India
- Ambuja Cements Ltd - India
- Meralco Power Generation, Philippines
- PTC India Limited - India
- Meenaskhi Energy Private Limited - India
- Star Paper Mills Limited - India
- Borneo Indobara - Indonesia
- Malabar Cements Ltd - India
- Australian Coal Association
- Offshore Bulk Terminal Pte Ltd, Singapore
- Globalindo Alam Lestari - Indonesia
- Gujarat Sidhee Cement - India
- Madhucon Powers Ltd - India
- New Zealand Coal & Carbon
- Eastern Energy - Thailand
- Kohat Cement Company Ltd. - Pakistan
- Kaltim Prima Coal - Indonesia
- Electricity Authority, New Zealand
- Indika Energy - Indonesia
- Posco Energy - South Korea
- Dr Ramakrishna Prasad Power Pvt Ltd - India
- Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited - India
- Dalmia Cement Bharat India
- Kideco Jaya Agung - Indonesia
- Semirara Mining Corp, Philippines
- Semirara Mining and Power Corporation, Philippines
- Global Business Power Corporation, Philippines
- Bukit Makmur.PT - Indonesia
- SMC Global Power, Philippines
- GN Power Mariveles Coal Plant, Philippines
- Minerals Council of Australia
- Formosa Plastics Group - Taiwan
- Petrochimia International Co. Ltd.- Taiwan
- Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd - Australia
- Asmin Koalindo Tuhup - Indonesia
- Tamil Nadu electricity Board
- Xindia Steels Limited - India
- CIMB Investment Bank - Malaysia
- Independent Power Producers Association of India
- Renaissance Capital - South Africa
- Dong Bac Coal Mineral Investment Coporation - Vietnam
- Power Finance Corporation Ltd., India
- Medco Energi Mining Internasional
- TNB Fuel Sdn Bhd - Malaysia
- PetroVietnam Power Coal Import and Supply Company
- Pipit Mutiara Jaya. PT, Indonesia
- Deloitte Consulting - India
- McConnell Dowell - Australia
- Port Waratah Coal Services - Australia
- MS Steel International - UAE
- Kartika Selabumi Mining - Indonesia
- Romanian Commodities Exchange
- Cigading International Bulk Terminal - Indonesia
- Indonesian Coal Mining Association
- Cement Manufacturers Association - India
- Bhoruka Overseas - Indonesia
- Altura Mining Limited, Indonesia
- Mercator Lines Limited - India
- The Treasury - Australian Government
- Bayan Resources Tbk. - Indonesia
- Savvy Resources Ltd - HongKong
- Krishnapatnam Port Company Ltd. - India
- Agrawal Coal Company - India
- Planning Commission, India
- Sical Logistics Limited - India
- Sree Jayajothi Cements Limited - India
- Parry Sugars Refinery, India
- Kalimantan Lumbung Energi - Indonesia
- Mercuria Energy - Indonesia
- Georgia Ports Authority, United States
|
| |
| |
|
