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, 08 October 14
OIL COULD FALL TO USD80 BEFORE SHALE SUPPLY RESPONSE - FITCH
COALspot.com: Brent oil could fall as low as USD80 a barrel before triggering a self-correcting supply response with shale-oil drillers cutting inv ...
Wednesday, 08 October 14
IS THERE ANY BRIGHT SIDE ON THE DRY BULK SEGMENT? - YANNIS OLZIERSKY
In the movie “Life Of Brian”, a character on a nearby cross was singing the famous “Always look on the bright side of life” ...
Tuesday, 07 October 14
TAIPOWER TO IMPORT 525K MT OF LOW ASH AND EXTRA LOW SULFUR SUB-BITUMINOUS COAL
COALspot.com: Taiwan Power Company intends to procure 525,000 metric tons of low ash and extra low sulfur sub-bituminous coal for Taipower thermal ...
Tuesday, 07 October 14
SUB-BIT FOB INDONESIA COAL SWAP SHOWS A FLAT TO WEAK TREND THIS PAST WEEK
COALspot.com: Indonesian coal swaps November 2014 delivery flat week on week and gained US$ 0.10 (-0.20%) per mt day on day. The swap also lost US$ ...
Tuesday, 07 October 14
THE RIO TINTO CONFIRMS THAT NO DISCUSSIONS ARE TAKING PLACE WITH GLENCORE
COALspot.com: The board of Rio Tinto notes the recent press speculation regarding a possible combination of Rio Tinto and Glencore.The Rio Tinto bo ...
|
|
|
Showing 3446 to 3450 news of total 6871 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
 |
|
|
| |
|
- Wood Mackenzie - Singapore
- Bhushan Steel Limited - India
- Banpu Public Company Limited - Thailand
- Sojitz Corporation - Japan
- Chamber of Mines of South Africa
- Trasteel International SA, Italy
- Coalindo Energy - Indonesia
- Petron Corporation, Philippines
- Merrill Lynch Commodities Europe
- Attock Cement Pakistan Limited
- Star Paper Mills Limited - India
- Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand
- Global Green Power PLC Corporation, Philippines
- Larsen & Toubro Limited - India
- Aditya Birla Group - India
- CNBM International Corporation - China
- GMR Energy Limited - India
- Bangladesh Power Developement Board
- Bukit Makmur.PT - Indonesia
- Vedanta Resources Plc - India
- Maheswari Brothers Coal Limited - India
- Bahari Cakrawala Sebuku - Indonesia
- Global Coal Blending Company Limited - Australia
- Posco Energy - South Korea
- Simpson Spence & Young - Indonesia
- Price Waterhouse Coopers - Russia
- Goldman Sachs - Singapore
- Planning Commission, India
- Georgia Ports Authority, United States
- Xindia Steels Limited - India
- Energy Development Corp, Philippines
- Mintek Dendrill Indonesia
- IHS Mccloskey Coal Group - USA
- Karbindo Abesyapradhi - Indoneisa
- Miang Besar Coal Terminal - Indonesia
- Ministry of Mines - Canada
- Holcim Trading Pte Ltd - Singapore
- Energy Link Ltd, New Zealand
- Therma Luzon, Inc, Philippines
- Eastern Energy - Thailand
- Coal and Oil Company - UAE
- Commonwealth Bank - Australia
- White Energy Company Limited
- LBH Netherlands Bv - Netherlands
- Truba Alam Manunggal Engineering.Tbk - Indonesia
- Tamil Nadu electricity Board
- Mercator Lines Limited - India
- TNB Fuel Sdn Bhd - Malaysia
- Bukit Asam (Persero) Tbk - Indonesia
- GVK Power & Infra Limited - India
- Altura Mining Limited, Indonesia
- Gujarat Sidhee Cement - India
- Pipit Mutiara Jaya. PT, Indonesia
- Medco Energi Mining Internasional
- GN Power Mariveles Coal Plant, Philippines
- SMC Global Power, Philippines
- Wilmar Investment Holdings
- International Coal Ventures Pvt Ltd - India
- The Treasury - Australian Government
- Manunggal Multi Energi - Indonesia
- Economic Council, Georgia
- Orica Australia Pty. Ltd.
- Cement Manufacturers Association - India
- Interocean Group of Companies - India
- Latin American Coal - Colombia
- Australian Coal Association
- Sree Jayajothi Cements Limited - India
- Billiton Holdings Pty Ltd - Australia
- Mercuria Energy - Indonesia
- Cigading International Bulk Terminal - Indonesia
- Central Java Power - Indonesia
- Kohat Cement Company Ltd. - Pakistan
- Global Business Power Corporation, Philippines
- Sakthi Sugars Limited - India
- Ministry of Finance - Indonesia
- Jaiprakash Power Ventures ltd
- Kapuas Tunggal Persada - Indonesia
- TeaM Sual Corporation - Philippines
- Lanco Infratech Ltd - India
- Carbofer General Trading SA - India
- Sarangani Energy Corporation, Philippines
- Agrawal Coal Company - India
- Ceylon Electricity Board - Sri Lanka
- Eastern Coal Council - USA
- Globalindo Alam Lestari - Indonesia
- European Bulk Services B.V. - Netherlands
- Indogreen Group - Indonesia
- Salva Resources Pvt Ltd - India
- Oldendorff Carriers - Singapore
- Makarim & Taira - Indonesia
- Standard Chartered Bank - UAE
- CIMB Investment Bank - Malaysia
- Samtan Co., Ltd - South Korea
- Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission - India
- Baramulti Group, Indonesia
- Minerals Council of Australia
- India Bulls Power Limited - India
- Dong Bac Coal Mineral Investment Coporation - Vietnam
- Karaikal Port Pvt Ltd - India
- Madhucon Powers Ltd - India
- Ministry of Transport, Egypt
- Offshore Bulk Terminal Pte Ltd, Singapore
- Aboitiz Power Corporation - Philippines
- Sinarmas Energy and Mining - Indonesia
- Directorate General of MIneral and Coal - Indonesia
- Jindal Steel & Power Ltd - India
- Borneo Indobara - Indonesia
- Kartika Selabumi Mining - Indonesia
- Riau Bara Harum - Indonesia
- Bharathi Cement Corporation - India
- OPG Power Generation Pvt Ltd - India
- Renaissance Capital - South Africa
- Marubeni Corporation - India
- Jorong Barutama Greston.PT - Indonesia
- Bukit Baiduri Energy - Indonesia
- Vijayanagar Sugar Pvt Ltd - India
- Mjunction Services Limited - India
- The State Trading Corporation of India Ltd
- Meralco Power Generation, Philippines
- Siam City Cement PLC, Thailand
- IEA Clean Coal Centre - UK
- Bayan Resources Tbk. - Indonesia
- Indian Oil Corporation Limited
- Singapore Mercantile Exchange
- Bhoruka Overseas - Indonesia
- Alfred C Toepfer International GmbH - Germany
- Electricity Authority, New Zealand
- London Commodity Brokers - England
- Formosa Plastics Group - Taiwan
- Parry Sugars Refinery, India
- Power Finance Corporation Ltd., India
- Bhatia International Limited - India
- PetroVietnam Power Coal Import and Supply Company
- Port Waratah Coal Services - Australia
- Semirara Mining and Power Corporation, Philippines
- Timah Investasi Mineral - Indoneisa
- Krishnapatnam Port Company Ltd. - India
- Independent Power Producers Association of India
- Pendopo Energi Batubara - Indonesia
- Thiess Contractors Indonesia
- Videocon Industries ltd - India
- Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd, - India
- Indian Energy Exchange, India
- Savvy Resources Ltd - HongKong
- San Jose City I Power Corp, Philippines
- Kideco Jaya Agung - Indonesia
- Antam Resourcindo - Indonesia
- PNOC Exploration Corporation - Philippines
- Indonesian Coal Mining Association
- Kumho Petrochemical, South Korea
- Ambuja Cements Ltd - India
- Barasentosa Lestari - Indonesia
- Directorate Of Revenue Intelligence - India
- Africa Commodities Group - South Africa
- Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited - India
- Deloitte Consulting - India
- Essar Steel Hazira Ltd - India
- Romanian Commodities Exchange
- Asia Pacific Energy Resources Ventures Inc, Philippines
- Bank of Tokyo Mitsubishi UFJ Ltd
- Tata Chemicals Ltd - India
- Sindya Power Generating Company Private Ltd
- Gujarat Mineral Development Corp Ltd - India
- Malabar Cements Ltd - India
- Indika Energy - Indonesia
- PTC India Limited - India
- Filglen & Citicon Mining (HK) Ltd - Hong Kong
- Meenaskhi Energy Private Limited - India
- Coastal Gujarat Power Limited - India
- Chettinad Cement Corporation Ltd - India
- Intertek Mineral Services - Indonesia
- AsiaOL BioFuels Corp., Philippines
- Kaltim Prima Coal - Indonesia
- The University of Queensland
- Binh Thuan Hamico - Vietnam
- Ind-Barath Power Infra Limited - India
- Asmin Koalindo Tuhup - Indonesia
- Edison Trading Spa - Italy
- Indo Tambangraya Megah - Indonesia
- South Luzon Thermal Energy Corporation
- SN Aboitiz Power Inc, Philippines
- Dalmia Cement Bharat India
- Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission - India
- Grasim Industreis Ltd - India
- Siam City Cement - Thailand
- McConnell Dowell - Australia
- Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd - Australia
- Kalimantan Lumbung Energi - Indonesia
- New Zealand Coal & Carbon
- Australian Commodity Traders Exchange
- ICICI Bank Limited - India
- Kepco SPC Power Corporation, Philippines
- GAC Shipping (India) Pvt Ltd
- Heidelberg Cement - Germany
- Iligan Light & Power Inc, Philippines
- SMG Consultants - Indonesia
- PowerSource Philippines DevCo
- MS Steel International - UAE
- ASAPP Information Group - India
- Central Electricity Authority - India
- Dr Ramakrishna Prasad Power Pvt Ltd - India
- Sical Logistics Limited - India
- Thai Mozambique Logistica
- Parliament of New Zealand
- Uttam Galva Steels Limited - India
- Rio Tinto Coal - Australia
- Vizag Seaport Private Limited - India
- Orica Mining Services - Indonesia
- Toyota Tsusho Corporation, Japan
- Kobexindo Tractors - Indoneisa
- Anglo American - United Kingdom
- Straits Asia Resources Limited - Singapore
- Semirara Mining Corp, Philippines
- Metalloyd Limited - United Kingdom
- VISA Power Limited - India
- Petrochimia International Co. Ltd.- Taiwan
- Bulk Trading Sa - Switzerland
|
| |
| |
|
