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.
|
|
Thursday, 02 October 14
CAPESIZE - DULL AND WITHOUT MUCH DIRECTION AS IRON ORE AND COAL VOLUMES FAIL TO LIVE UP EXPECTATIONS
Handy
After the recent weeks´ rate increase in the Atlantic we see Panamaxes snapping up handymax and Supra cargoes at much lower levels, p ...
Wednesday, 01 October 14
ASIAN THERMAL COAL PRICES TO REMAIN WEAK ON OVERSUPPLY - FITCH
COALspot.com: The thermal coal market in Asia will remain oversupplied in the next 12 months, in spite of on-going rationalisation of production, a ...
Wednesday, 01 October 14
PANAMAXES: DEFENSIVE, STRUGGLING TO KEEP ANY FURTHER DECREASES - INTERMODAL
COALspot.com: The Dry Bulk market seemed unable to shake off the trend of the week prior and the BDI remained on a downward slope for the bigger pa ...
Wednesday, 01 October 14
FITCH: GLOBAL ECONOMY FACES MULTI-SPEED RECOVERY, MULTIPLE RISKS
Fitch Ratings says in its latest Global Economic Outlook (GEO) that global growth will pick up in 2015 and 2016, but risks are weighted to the down ...
Tuesday, 30 September 14
COALVIEW TO PARTICIPATE AT MET COKE WORLD SUMMIT 2014 IN CHICAGO
COALspot.com: Coalview Ltd., LLC(“Coalview”) America's leading fully integrated coal technology and fine coal recovery company prov ...
|
|
|
Showing 3456 to 3460 news of total 6871 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
 |
|
|
| |
|
- PetroVietnam Power Coal Import and Supply Company
- Antam Resourcindo - Indonesia
- Parliament of New Zealand
- Essar Steel Hazira Ltd - India
- Barasentosa Lestari - Indonesia
- Ministry of Finance - Indonesia
- Coal and Oil Company - UAE
- Power Finance Corporation Ltd., India
- Sree Jayajothi Cements Limited - India
- Indo Tambangraya Megah - Indonesia
- Metalloyd Limited - United Kingdom
- The State Trading Corporation of India Ltd
- The University of Queensland
- Bhushan Steel Limited - India
- ASAPP Information Group - India
- Jaiprakash Power Ventures ltd
- Parry Sugars Refinery, India
- Indika Energy - Indonesia
- Heidelberg Cement - Germany
- Mjunction Services Limited - India
- Straits Asia Resources Limited - Singapore
- Australian Coal Association
- Alfred C Toepfer International GmbH - Germany
- Aditya Birla Group - India
- White Energy Company Limited
- Interocean Group of Companies - India
- Binh Thuan Hamico - Vietnam
- Central Java Power - Indonesia
- Thai Mozambique Logistica
- Sakthi Sugars Limited - India
- Cement Manufacturers Association - India
- TeaM Sual Corporation - Philippines
- Africa Commodities Group - South Africa
- Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd, - India
- SMC Global Power, Philippines
- Orica Australia Pty. Ltd.
- Dalmia Cement Bharat India
- Kobexindo Tractors - Indoneisa
- CIMB Investment Bank - Malaysia
- Price Waterhouse Coopers - Russia
- Siam City Cement - Thailand
- Uttam Galva Steels Limited - India
- IHS Mccloskey Coal Group - USA
- OPG Power Generation Pvt Ltd - India
- Global Business Power Corporation, Philippines
- Romanian Commodities Exchange
- Kapuas Tunggal Persada - Indonesia
- Offshore Bulk Terminal Pte Ltd, Singapore
- Ministry of Transport, Egypt
- Kumho Petrochemical, South Korea
- Malabar Cements Ltd - India
- GVK Power & Infra Limited - India
- New Zealand Coal & Carbon
- Dong Bac Coal Mineral Investment Coporation - Vietnam
- Iligan Light & Power Inc, Philippines
- Vedanta Resources Plc - India
- Independent Power Producers Association of India
- SN Aboitiz Power Inc, Philippines
- Chamber of Mines of South Africa
- Mercuria Energy - Indonesia
- Marubeni Corporation - India
- Directorate Of Revenue Intelligence - India
- Manunggal Multi Energi - Indonesia
- Baramulti Group, Indonesia
- Meenaskhi Energy Private Limited - India
- Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission - India
- Anglo American - United Kingdom
- MS Steel International - UAE
- Oldendorff Carriers - Singapore
- Wood Mackenzie - Singapore
- Chettinad Cement Corporation Ltd - India
- Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd - Australia
- Directorate General of MIneral and Coal - Indonesia
- Xindia Steels Limited - India
- Billiton Holdings Pty Ltd - Australia
- Vizag Seaport Private Limited - India
- Wilmar Investment Holdings
- AsiaOL BioFuels Corp., Philippines
- Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand
- Holcim Trading Pte Ltd - Singapore
- Eastern Coal Council - USA
- Altura Mining Limited, Indonesia
- Bhoruka Overseas - Indonesia
- Semirara Mining Corp, Philippines
- Orica Mining Services - Indonesia
- Bangladesh Power Developement Board
- Commonwealth Bank - Australia
- Sindya Power Generating Company Private Ltd
- Pipit Mutiara Jaya. PT, Indonesia
- PTC India Limited - India
- Ministry of Mines - Canada
- Star Paper Mills Limited - India
- Carbofer General Trading SA - India
- Cigading International Bulk Terminal - Indonesia
- Bayan Resources Tbk. - Indonesia
- Agrawal Coal Company - India
- Lanco Infratech Ltd - India
- Larsen & Toubro Limited - India
- Karaikal Port Pvt Ltd - India
- Siam City Cement PLC, Thailand
- Madhucon Powers Ltd - India
- Ind-Barath Power Infra Limited - India
- Globalindo Alam Lestari - Indonesia
- Kohat Cement Company Ltd. - Pakistan
- Aboitiz Power Corporation - Philippines
- Bharathi Cement Corporation - India
- Gujarat Sidhee Cement - India
- Georgia Ports Authority, United States
- Renaissance Capital - South Africa
- McConnell Dowell - Australia
- Electricity Authority, New Zealand
- Merrill Lynch Commodities Europe
- Singapore Mercantile Exchange
- Intertek Mineral Services - Indonesia
- Dr Ramakrishna Prasad Power Pvt Ltd - India
- Therma Luzon, Inc, Philippines
- Eastern Energy - Thailand
- CNBM International Corporation - China
- Grasim Industreis Ltd - India
- European Bulk Services B.V. - Netherlands
- TNB Fuel Sdn Bhd - Malaysia
- Maheswari Brothers Coal Limited - India
- Bulk Trading Sa - Switzerland
- Indian Oil Corporation Limited
- Makarim & Taira - Indonesia
- Borneo Indobara - Indonesia
- Samtan Co., Ltd - South Korea
- Planning Commission, India
- PowerSource Philippines DevCo
- Mercator Lines Limited - India
- Global Coal Blending Company Limited - Australia
- Indonesian Coal Mining Association
- Jindal Steel & Power Ltd - India
- Deloitte Consulting - India
- Krishnapatnam Port Company Ltd. - India
- GAC Shipping (India) Pvt Ltd
- Karbindo Abesyapradhi - Indoneisa
- Minerals Council of Australia
- Sojitz Corporation - Japan
- Standard Chartered Bank - UAE
- PNOC Exploration Corporation - Philippines
- VISA Power Limited - India
- Videocon Industries ltd - India
- Goldman Sachs - Singapore
- Tamil Nadu electricity Board
- Edison Trading Spa - Italy
- Australian Commodity Traders Exchange
- Ambuja Cements Ltd - India
- Meralco Power Generation, Philippines
- Rio Tinto Coal - Australia
- Petron Corporation, Philippines
- IEA Clean Coal Centre - UK
- Miang Besar Coal Terminal - Indonesia
- The Treasury - Australian Government
- Kalimantan Lumbung Energi - Indonesia
- Jorong Barutama Greston.PT - Indonesia
- Vijayanagar Sugar Pvt Ltd - India
- Posco Energy - South Korea
- Central Electricity Authority - India
- International Coal Ventures Pvt Ltd - India
- Kideco Jaya Agung - Indonesia
- Bank of Tokyo Mitsubishi UFJ Ltd
- Formosa Plastics Group - Taiwan
- India Bulls Power Limited - India
- Energy Development Corp, Philippines
- Thiess Contractors Indonesia
- Timah Investasi Mineral - Indoneisa
- San Jose City I Power Corp, Philippines
- Bahari Cakrawala Sebuku - Indonesia
- GN Power Mariveles Coal Plant, Philippines
- GMR Energy Limited - India
- Trasteel International SA, Italy
- Global Green Power PLC Corporation, Philippines
- Kartika Selabumi Mining - Indonesia
- Toyota Tsusho Corporation, Japan
- Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited - India
- Energy Link Ltd, New Zealand
- Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission - India
- Tata Chemicals Ltd - India
- Gujarat Mineral Development Corp Ltd - India
- Sarangani Energy Corporation, Philippines
- Riau Bara Harum - Indonesia
- Port Waratah Coal Services - Australia
- Salva Resources Pvt Ltd - India
- Bukit Baiduri Energy - Indonesia
- Asia Pacific Energy Resources Ventures Inc, Philippines
- Bukit Makmur.PT - Indonesia
- Pendopo Energi Batubara - Indonesia
- Coastal Gujarat Power Limited - India
- Economic Council, Georgia
- SMG Consultants - Indonesia
- Banpu Public Company Limited - Thailand
- Mintek Dendrill Indonesia
- Savvy Resources Ltd - HongKong
- Semirara Mining and Power Corporation, Philippines
- Bukit Asam (Persero) Tbk - Indonesia
- London Commodity Brokers - England
- Kaltim Prima Coal - Indonesia
- South Luzon Thermal Energy Corporation
- Coalindo Energy - Indonesia
- Sical Logistics Limited - India
- Indogreen Group - Indonesia
- Filglen & Citicon Mining (HK) Ltd - Hong Kong
- Kepco SPC Power Corporation, Philippines
- Simpson Spence & Young - Indonesia
- Truba Alam Manunggal Engineering.Tbk - Indonesia
- ICICI Bank Limited - India
- Attock Cement Pakistan Limited
- Medco Energi Mining Internasional
- Sinarmas Energy and Mining - Indonesia
- LBH Netherlands Bv - Netherlands
- Asmin Koalindo Tuhup - Indonesia
- Bhatia International Limited - India
- Indian Energy Exchange, India
- Latin American Coal - Colombia
- Petrochimia International Co. Ltd.- Taiwan
- Ceylon Electricity Board - Sri Lanka
|
| |
| |
|
