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, 29 September 14
INDONESIAN COAL EXPORT VOLUME FALL IN AUGUST
COALspot.com: Indonesia, one of the world's largest coal producers and the global leading multi grade coal exporter shipped around $1.50 ...
Monday, 29 September 14
INDONESIAN COAL SWAPS LOST WEEK ON WEEK AND MONTH OVER MONTH
COALspot.com: Indonesian coal swaps for average November 2014 flat day on day and lost US$ 0.85 (-1.66%) per mt week on week. The swap also lost US ...
Monday, 29 September 14
CFR SOUTH CHINA COAL LOST AROUND 5% MONTH ON MONTH
COALspot.com: API 8 CFR South China Coal swap for delivery in November 2014 decreased US$ 3.55 (-5.10%) month over month and flat week over week.
...
Sunday, 28 September 14
FREIGHT RATES FROM INDONESIA TO INDIA IS EXPECTED TO BE FIRM NEXT WEEK - CAPT. REDDY
COALspot.com: The freight market shows a bit weak trend this week.
The BDI was lost 2.42% week on week and closed at 1049 points on 26 Se ...
Sunday, 28 September 14
BERAU AGREES DEAL WITH GOVT, MINING AREA REDUCED - THE JAKARTA POST
Coal miner PT Berau Coal, a subsidiary of Jakarta-listed PT Berau Coal Energy (BRAU), has signed a memorandum of understanding (MoU) with the gover ...
|
|
|
Showing 3461 to 3465 news of total 6871 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
 |
|
|
| |
|
- Pendopo Energi Batubara - Indonesia
- Essar Steel Hazira Ltd - India
- Globalindo Alam Lestari - Indonesia
- Bhoruka Overseas - Indonesia
- Savvy Resources Ltd - HongKong
- Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd, - India
- Wilmar Investment Holdings
- Eastern Energy - Thailand
- LBH Netherlands Bv - Netherlands
- Therma Luzon, Inc, Philippines
- IHS Mccloskey Coal Group - USA
- Sinarmas Energy and Mining - Indonesia
- Mercator Lines Limited - India
- Straits Asia Resources Limited - Singapore
- Wood Mackenzie - Singapore
- Mjunction Services Limited - India
- Dong Bac Coal Mineral Investment Coporation - Vietnam
- SMG Consultants - Indonesia
- Indian Oil Corporation Limited
- SMC Global Power, Philippines
- Billiton Holdings Pty Ltd - Australia
- Agrawal Coal Company - India
- MS Steel International - UAE
- Petrochimia International Co. Ltd.- Taiwan
- PowerSource Philippines DevCo
- Kepco SPC Power Corporation, Philippines
- Orica Mining Services - Indonesia
- Salva Resources Pvt Ltd - India
- Carbofer General Trading SA - India
- Altura Mining Limited, Indonesia
- Australian Coal Association
- Port Waratah Coal Services - Australia
- Renaissance Capital - South Africa
- Formosa Plastics Group - Taiwan
- VISA Power Limited - India
- Malabar Cements Ltd - India
- Bayan Resources Tbk. - Indonesia
- TeaM Sual Corporation - Philippines
- Sree Jayajothi Cements Limited - India
- Dalmia Cement Bharat India
- Bharathi Cement Corporation - India
- Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited - India
- Global Green Power PLC Corporation, Philippines
- The State Trading Corporation of India Ltd
- Deloitte Consulting - India
- Manunggal Multi Energi - Indonesia
- Goldman Sachs - Singapore
- Singapore Mercantile Exchange
- Maheswari Brothers Coal Limited - India
- Sindya Power Generating Company Private Ltd
- Toyota Tsusho Corporation, Japan
- Vedanta Resources Plc - India
- Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd - Australia
- Banpu Public Company Limited - Thailand
- Aditya Birla Group - India
- Eastern Coal Council - USA
- Ministry of Mines - Canada
- Australian Commodity Traders Exchange
- Parry Sugars Refinery, India
- Medco Energi Mining Internasional
- Anglo American - United Kingdom
- Intertek Mineral Services - Indonesia
- GMR Energy Limited - India
- Bukit Baiduri Energy - Indonesia
- Sakthi Sugars Limited - India
- PetroVietnam Power Coal Import and Supply Company
- Marubeni Corporation - India
- Thai Mozambique Logistica
- Directorate Of Revenue Intelligence - India
- OPG Power Generation Pvt Ltd - India
- Meenaskhi Energy Private Limited - India
- Meralco Power Generation, Philippines
- Ambuja Cements Ltd - India
- Sarangani Energy Corporation, Philippines
- Filglen & Citicon Mining (HK) Ltd - Hong Kong
- Coal and Oil Company - UAE
- Planning Commission, India
- Chettinad Cement Corporation Ltd - India
- Larsen & Toubro Limited - India
- India Bulls Power Limited - India
- Energy Link Ltd, New Zealand
- Cement Manufacturers Association - India
- IEA Clean Coal Centre - UK
- Makarim & Taira - Indonesia
- Kalimantan Lumbung Energi - Indonesia
- Videocon Industries ltd - India
- Kaltim Prima Coal - Indonesia
- Bank of Tokyo Mitsubishi UFJ Ltd
- San Jose City I Power Corp, Philippines
- Barasentosa Lestari - Indonesia
- Bangladesh Power Developement Board
- Gujarat Sidhee Cement - India
- The University of Queensland
- New Zealand Coal & Carbon
- Aboitiz Power Corporation - Philippines
- Bulk Trading Sa - Switzerland
- PNOC Exploration Corporation - Philippines
- Siam City Cement - Thailand
- Star Paper Mills Limited - India
- International Coal Ventures Pvt Ltd - India
- Coastal Gujarat Power Limited - India
- SN Aboitiz Power Inc, Philippines
- Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand
- McConnell Dowell - Australia
- Parliament of New Zealand
- Sojitz Corporation - Japan
- Independent Power Producers Association of India
- Kohat Cement Company Ltd. - Pakistan
- European Bulk Services B.V. - Netherlands
- Central Electricity Authority - India
- Kartika Selabumi Mining - Indonesia
- Grasim Industreis Ltd - India
- Riau Bara Harum - Indonesia
- Jindal Steel & Power Ltd - India
- Thiess Contractors Indonesia
- Xindia Steels Limited - India
- Minerals Council of Australia
- Posco Energy - South Korea
- Latin American Coal - Colombia
- Ind-Barath Power Infra Limited - India
- Offshore Bulk Terminal Pte Ltd, Singapore
- Indonesian Coal Mining Association
- Semirara Mining Corp, Philippines
- Edison Trading Spa - Italy
- Tamil Nadu electricity Board
- Lanco Infratech Ltd - India
- Economic Council, Georgia
- Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission - India
- Global Coal Blending Company Limited - Australia
- Samtan Co., Ltd - South Korea
- Romanian Commodities Exchange
- Commonwealth Bank - Australia
- Uttam Galva Steels Limited - India
- Bahari Cakrawala Sebuku - Indonesia
- Semirara Mining and Power Corporation, Philippines
- Coalindo Energy - Indonesia
- Electricity Authority, New Zealand
- Petron Corporation, Philippines
- Trasteel International SA, Italy
- Antam Resourcindo - Indonesia
- Karaikal Port Pvt Ltd - India
- Mercuria Energy - Indonesia
- Price Waterhouse Coopers - Russia
- South Luzon Thermal Energy Corporation
- The Treasury - Australian Government
- Ceylon Electricity Board - Sri Lanka
- AsiaOL BioFuels Corp., Philippines
- Miang Besar Coal Terminal - Indonesia
- PTC India Limited - India
- Vijayanagar Sugar Pvt Ltd - India
- TNB Fuel Sdn Bhd - Malaysia
- Alfred C Toepfer International GmbH - Germany
- Metalloyd Limited - United Kingdom
- Simpson Spence & Young - Indonesia
- Binh Thuan Hamico - Vietnam
- Global Business Power Corporation, Philippines
- Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission - India
- Asmin Koalindo Tuhup - Indonesia
- Vizag Seaport Private Limited - India
- Bhatia International Limited - India
- Bukit Makmur.PT - Indonesia
- Asia Pacific Energy Resources Ventures Inc, Philippines
- Heidelberg Cement - Germany
- Interocean Group of Companies - India
- Orica Australia Pty. Ltd.
- GVK Power & Infra Limited - India
- Tata Chemicals Ltd - India
- GAC Shipping (India) Pvt Ltd
- Kapuas Tunggal Persada - Indonesia
- ICICI Bank Limited - India
- Kumho Petrochemical, South Korea
- Indogreen Group - Indonesia
- Africa Commodities Group - South Africa
- Gujarat Mineral Development Corp Ltd - India
- Sical Logistics Limited - India
- Iligan Light & Power Inc, Philippines
- Kobexindo Tractors - Indoneisa
- GN Power Mariveles Coal Plant, Philippines
- CIMB Investment Bank - Malaysia
- Directorate General of MIneral and Coal - Indonesia
- Central Java Power - Indonesia
- Timah Investasi Mineral - Indoneisa
- Indika Energy - Indonesia
- Indian Energy Exchange, India
- Attock Cement Pakistan Limited
- ASAPP Information Group - India
- Karbindo Abesyapradhi - Indoneisa
- White Energy Company Limited
- Jorong Barutama Greston.PT - Indonesia
- Baramulti Group, Indonesia
- Ministry of Transport, Egypt
- CNBM International Corporation - China
- Truba Alam Manunggal Engineering.Tbk - Indonesia
- Mintek Dendrill Indonesia
- Dr Ramakrishna Prasad Power Pvt Ltd - India
- Georgia Ports Authority, United States
- Merrill Lynch Commodities Europe
- Oldendorff Carriers - Singapore
- Energy Development Corp, Philippines
- Chamber of Mines of South Africa
- Krishnapatnam Port Company Ltd. - India
- Ministry of Finance - Indonesia
- Bhushan Steel Limited - India
- Rio Tinto Coal - Australia
- Siam City Cement PLC, Thailand
- Kideco Jaya Agung - Indonesia
- Standard Chartered Bank - UAE
- Bukit Asam (Persero) Tbk - Indonesia
- Cigading International Bulk Terminal - Indonesia
- Borneo Indobara - Indonesia
- Holcim Trading Pte Ltd - Singapore
- Indo Tambangraya Megah - Indonesia
- Pipit Mutiara Jaya. PT, Indonesia
- Jaiprakash Power Ventures ltd
- London Commodity Brokers - England
- Power Finance Corporation Ltd., India
- Madhucon Powers Ltd - India
|
| |
| |
|
