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.
|
|
Tuesday, 07 October 14
API 8 CFR SOUTH CHINA COAL SWAP HEADED SOUTH
COALspot.com: API 8 CFR South China Coal swap for delivery in November 2014 decreased US$ 1.10 (-1.64%) month over month and US$ 0.25 (-0.38%) ...
Monday, 06 October 14
' COAL-BY-WIRE' FROM SUMATRA TO JAVA - THE JAKARTA POST
Coal from the island of Sumatra accounts for most of Indonesia’s low-grade lignite, a low-quality coal that receives a poor price in internat ...
Monday, 06 October 14
THE IRON ORE SHIPPING BUSINESS IS FACING SOME ROUGH SEAS - EAST ASIA FORUM
The impact of Chinese demand on global iron ore prices is well known. A less acknowledged consequence of China’s emergence is the transformat ...
Sunday, 05 October 14
BALTIC DRY INDEX SLIPS 1.14%; BALTIC PANAMAX INDEX GAINED 9.91% WEEK ON WEEK
COALspot.com: The BDI was down by 1.14 pct and closed at 1037 points this Friday.
The Cape index was down significantly week on week or lost 5 ...
Friday, 03 October 14
U.S. WEEKLY COAL PRODUCTION UP 5.8% TO 19.9 MMST
COALspot.com – United States the world's one of largest coal producers, produced approximately 19.9 million short tons (mmst) of co ...
|
|
|
Showing 3451 to 3455 news of total 6871 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
 |
|
|
| |
|
- Sree Jayajothi Cements Limited - India
- Aboitiz Power Corporation - Philippines
- Bulk Trading Sa - Switzerland
- Indian Oil Corporation Limited
- PowerSource Philippines DevCo
- Timah Investasi Mineral - Indoneisa
- Goldman Sachs - Singapore
- Meralco Power Generation, Philippines
- White Energy Company Limited
- Posco Energy - South Korea
- Thiess Contractors Indonesia
- Coalindo Energy - Indonesia
- Kideco Jaya Agung - Indonesia
- Bhoruka Overseas - Indonesia
- Independent Power Producers Association of India
- Gujarat Sidhee Cement - India
- Binh Thuan Hamico - Vietnam
- Gujarat Mineral Development Corp Ltd - India
- The State Trading Corporation of India Ltd
- Price Waterhouse Coopers - Russia
- Global Business Power Corporation, Philippines
- Dalmia Cement Bharat India
- Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission - India
- Indo Tambangraya Megah - Indonesia
- Carbofer General Trading SA - India
- Sarangani Energy Corporation, Philippines
- Pipit Mutiara Jaya. PT, Indonesia
- Parliament of New Zealand
- CNBM International Corporation - China
- Karaikal Port Pvt Ltd - India
- Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd - Australia
- Baramulti Group, Indonesia
- Economic Council, Georgia
- Borneo Indobara - Indonesia
- Jorong Barutama Greston.PT - Indonesia
- Antam Resourcindo - Indonesia
- Petrochimia International Co. Ltd.- Taiwan
- Kepco SPC Power Corporation, Philippines
- Bayan Resources Tbk. - Indonesia
- Attock Cement Pakistan Limited
- Offshore Bulk Terminal Pte Ltd, Singapore
- Medco Energi Mining Internasional
- Bhatia International Limited - India
- Bukit Asam (Persero) Tbk - Indonesia
- SMG Consultants - Indonesia
- Wilmar Investment Holdings
- Vijayanagar Sugar Pvt Ltd - India
- Star Paper Mills Limited - India
- Ambuja Cements Ltd - India
- Heidelberg Cement - Germany
- Port Waratah Coal Services - Australia
- Kumho Petrochemical, South Korea
- GMR Energy Limited - India
- Manunggal Multi Energi - Indonesia
- Directorate Of Revenue Intelligence - India
- Kapuas Tunggal Persada - Indonesia
- Jaiprakash Power Ventures ltd
- Intertek Mineral Services - Indonesia
- Metalloyd Limited - United Kingdom
- CIMB Investment Bank - Malaysia
- Cement Manufacturers Association - India
- London Commodity Brokers - England
- Rio Tinto Coal - Australia
- Marubeni Corporation - India
- Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited - India
- Bukit Baiduri Energy - Indonesia
- Bharathi Cement Corporation - India
- Petron Corporation, Philippines
- Formosa Plastics Group - Taiwan
- New Zealand Coal & Carbon
- GN Power Mariveles Coal Plant, Philippines
- Planning Commission, India
- Semirara Mining and Power Corporation, Philippines
- Central Electricity Authority - India
- PetroVietnam Power Coal Import and Supply Company
- Mintek Dendrill Indonesia
- Billiton Holdings Pty Ltd - Australia
- Sakthi Sugars Limited - India
- Asmin Koalindo Tuhup - Indonesia
- LBH Netherlands Bv - Netherlands
- MS Steel International - UAE
- Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission - India
- Global Green Power PLC Corporation, Philippines
- Salva Resources Pvt Ltd - India
- Riau Bara Harum - Indonesia
- Alfred C Toepfer International GmbH - Germany
- GVK Power & Infra Limited - India
- The University of Queensland
- San Jose City I Power Corp, Philippines
- Grasim Industreis Ltd - India
- Power Finance Corporation Ltd., India
- Georgia Ports Authority, United States
- Indian Energy Exchange, India
- Tata Chemicals Ltd - India
- McConnell Dowell - Australia
- Eastern Coal Council - USA
- OPG Power Generation Pvt Ltd - India
- South Luzon Thermal Energy Corporation
- Toyota Tsusho Corporation, Japan
- Indika Energy - Indonesia
- Ministry of Transport, Egypt
- Pendopo Energi Batubara - Indonesia
- Bukit Makmur.PT - Indonesia
- Directorate General of MIneral and Coal - Indonesia
- Dr Ramakrishna Prasad Power Pvt Ltd - India
- Videocon Industries ltd - India
- Straits Asia Resources Limited - Singapore
- Oldendorff Carriers - Singapore
- Banpu Public Company Limited - Thailand
- IEA Clean Coal Centre - UK
- Asia Pacific Energy Resources Ventures Inc, Philippines
- Minerals Council of Australia
- Coastal Gujarat Power Limited - India
- Makarim & Taira - Indonesia
- Anglo American - United Kingdom
- India Bulls Power Limited - India
- Barasentosa Lestari - Indonesia
- SMC Global Power, Philippines
- Standard Chartered Bank - UAE
- Malabar Cements Ltd - India
- Jindal Steel & Power Ltd - India
- Agrawal Coal Company - India
- Parry Sugars Refinery, India
- Energy Development Corp, Philippines
- Indogreen Group - Indonesia
- Aditya Birla Group - India
- Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd, - India
- Interocean Group of Companies - India
- PTC India Limited - India
- Orica Mining Services - Indonesia
- Essar Steel Hazira Ltd - India
- Electricity Authority, New Zealand
- Vedanta Resources Plc - India
- Meenaskhi Energy Private Limited - India
- Kohat Cement Company Ltd. - Pakistan
- Karbindo Abesyapradhi - Indoneisa
- ICICI Bank Limited - India
- Eastern Energy - Thailand
- Commonwealth Bank - Australia
- Larsen & Toubro Limited - India
- Bangladesh Power Developement Board
- Australian Commodity Traders Exchange
- Samtan Co., Ltd - South Korea
- Indonesian Coal Mining Association
- Bahari Cakrawala Sebuku - Indonesia
- Thai Mozambique Logistica
- VISA Power Limited - India
- Merrill Lynch Commodities Europe
- Bhushan Steel Limited - India
- IHS Mccloskey Coal Group - USA
- Australian Coal Association
- Maheswari Brothers Coal Limited - India
- Siam City Cement PLC, Thailand
- Singapore Mercantile Exchange
- Edison Trading Spa - Italy
- SN Aboitiz Power Inc, Philippines
- European Bulk Services B.V. - Netherlands
- Bank of Tokyo Mitsubishi UFJ Ltd
- PNOC Exploration Corporation - Philippines
- Holcim Trading Pte Ltd - Singapore
- Wood Mackenzie - Singapore
- Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand
- Savvy Resources Ltd - HongKong
- Simpson Spence & Young - Indonesia
- Kartika Selabumi Mining - Indonesia
- Ceylon Electricity Board - Sri Lanka
- Krishnapatnam Port Company Ltd. - India
- Iligan Light & Power Inc, Philippines
- Energy Link Ltd, New Zealand
- TeaM Sual Corporation - Philippines
- AsiaOL BioFuels Corp., Philippines
- Kaltim Prima Coal - Indonesia
- Miang Besar Coal Terminal - Indonesia
- Cigading International Bulk Terminal - Indonesia
- Sindya Power Generating Company Private Ltd
- Therma Luzon, Inc, Philippines
- Orica Australia Pty. Ltd.
- Altura Mining Limited, Indonesia
- International Coal Ventures Pvt Ltd - India
- Siam City Cement - Thailand
- Latin American Coal - Colombia
- Coal and Oil Company - UAE
- Sojitz Corporation - Japan
- Uttam Galva Steels Limited - India
- Sical Logistics Limited - India
- GAC Shipping (India) Pvt Ltd
- Africa Commodities Group - South Africa
- Mjunction Services Limited - India
- Central Java Power - Indonesia
- Mercuria Energy - Indonesia
- Truba Alam Manunggal Engineering.Tbk - Indonesia
- Sinarmas Energy and Mining - Indonesia
- Tamil Nadu electricity Board
- Trasteel International SA, Italy
- Semirara Mining Corp, Philippines
- Kalimantan Lumbung Energi - Indonesia
- Mercator Lines Limited - India
- Deloitte Consulting - India
- Chettinad Cement Corporation Ltd - India
- Lanco Infratech Ltd - India
- Filglen & Citicon Mining (HK) Ltd - Hong Kong
- Ind-Barath Power Infra Limited - India
- Vizag Seaport Private Limited - India
- Renaissance Capital - South Africa
- Dong Bac Coal Mineral Investment Coporation - Vietnam
- The Treasury - Australian Government
- Ministry of Mines - Canada
- Global Coal Blending Company Limited - Australia
- Globalindo Alam Lestari - Indonesia
- Romanian Commodities Exchange
- Chamber of Mines of South Africa
- Xindia Steels Limited - India
- ASAPP Information Group - India
- Kobexindo Tractors - Indoneisa
- Madhucon Powers Ltd - India
- Ministry of Finance - Indonesia
- TNB Fuel Sdn Bhd - Malaysia
|
| |
| |
|
