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.
|
|
Saturday, 27 September 14
OIL MARKET CONTANGO: SPECULATION ON FUTURE PRICES CAN BE A RISKY MOVE, EVEN FOR TANKER OWNERS HELLENIC SHIPPING NEWS
Despite the fact that tanker owners can easily use their vessels as floating storage units for oil, in a bid to exploit the current oil market dyna ...
Saturday, 27 September 14
MORE COAL MINERS AGREE TO AMEND CONTRACTS - THE JAKARTA POST
The Energy and Mineral Resources Ministry is in a rush to beat a deadline for the conclusion of numerous memorandums of understanding (MoUs) with t ...
Friday, 26 September 14
INDIA SUPREME COURT RULING TO HIT STEEL, UTILITY EARNINGS, SAYS FITCH
COALspot.com: The 24 September Supreme Court of India (SCI) decision to cancel almost every coal block allocation since 1993 will have a negative f ...
Friday, 26 September 14
U.S WEEKLY COAL PRODUCTION FELL 1.8% WEEK OVER WEEK, SAYS EIA
COALspot.com – United States the world's one of largest coal producers, produced approximately 18.80 million short tons (mmst) of c ...
Friday, 26 September 14
ORACLE SIGNS EPC FRAMEWORK AGREEMENT WITH SEPCO FOR COAL MINE AND POWER PLANT IN PAKISTAN
COALspot.com: Oracle Coalfields PLC, the UK developer of a lignite coal mine and power plant in the south-eastern Sindh Province, Pakistan, has ann ...
|
|
|
Showing 3466 to 3470 news of total 6871 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
 |
|
|
| |
|
- Meenaskhi Energy Private Limited - India
- Lanco Infratech Ltd - India
- Port Waratah Coal Services - Australia
- Goldman Sachs - Singapore
- Renaissance Capital - South Africa
- SN Aboitiz Power Inc, Philippines
- Posco Energy - South Korea
- Romanian Commodities Exchange
- Heidelberg Cement - Germany
- Dong Bac Coal Mineral Investment Coporation - Vietnam
- San Jose City I Power Corp, Philippines
- Latin American Coal - Colombia
- Sarangani Energy Corporation, Philippines
- Alfred C Toepfer International GmbH - Germany
- Mjunction Services Limited - India
- Electricity Authority, New Zealand
- Metalloyd Limited - United Kingdom
- Planning Commission, India
- Timah Investasi Mineral - Indoneisa
- Straits Asia Resources Limited - Singapore
- Salva Resources Pvt Ltd - India
- Grasim Industreis Ltd - India
- Rio Tinto Coal - Australia
- Simpson Spence & Young - Indonesia
- TNB Fuel Sdn Bhd - Malaysia
- Indika Energy - Indonesia
- Wood Mackenzie - Singapore
- PowerSource Philippines DevCo
- Bukit Asam (Persero) Tbk - Indonesia
- Bangladesh Power Developement Board
- Interocean Group of Companies - India
- Sakthi Sugars Limited - India
- Indogreen Group - Indonesia
- Marubeni Corporation - India
- Gujarat Sidhee Cement - India
- Australian Coal Association
- Antam Resourcindo - Indonesia
- Barasentosa Lestari - Indonesia
- Georgia Ports Authority, United States
- Kobexindo Tractors - Indoneisa
- South Luzon Thermal Energy Corporation
- India Bulls Power Limited - India
- Vedanta Resources Plc - India
- Savvy Resources Ltd - HongKong
- Bulk Trading Sa - Switzerland
- New Zealand Coal & Carbon
- GMR Energy Limited - India
- Deloitte Consulting - India
- European Bulk Services B.V. - Netherlands
- Asmin Koalindo Tuhup - Indonesia
- Wilmar Investment Holdings
- Filglen & Citicon Mining (HK) Ltd - Hong Kong
- Sindya Power Generating Company Private Ltd
- VISA Power Limited - India
- Petrochimia International Co. Ltd.- Taiwan
- Global Business Power Corporation, Philippines
- Eastern Energy - Thailand
- Globalindo Alam Lestari - Indonesia
- Cigading International Bulk Terminal - Indonesia
- PTC India Limited - India
- Chamber of Mines of South Africa
- Altura Mining Limited, Indonesia
- International Coal Ventures Pvt Ltd - India
- Medco Energi Mining Internasional
- Kaltim Prima Coal - Indonesia
- Meralco Power Generation, Philippines
- Truba Alam Manunggal Engineering.Tbk - Indonesia
- Dr Ramakrishna Prasad Power Pvt Ltd - India
- Xindia Steels Limited - India
- Dalmia Cement Bharat India
- Carbofer General Trading SA - India
- Kalimantan Lumbung Energi - Indonesia
- Commonwealth Bank - Australia
- Samtan Co., Ltd - South Korea
- Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd, - India
- Toyota Tsusho Corporation, Japan
- Sinarmas Energy and Mining - Indonesia
- Pendopo Energi Batubara - Indonesia
- Therma Luzon, Inc, Philippines
- Bahari Cakrawala Sebuku - Indonesia
- Borneo Indobara - Indonesia
- SMG Consultants - Indonesia
- The State Trading Corporation of India Ltd
- GVK Power & Infra Limited - India
- Sical Logistics Limited - India
- Kideco Jaya Agung - Indonesia
- Oldendorff Carriers - Singapore
- PNOC Exploration Corporation - Philippines
- Jaiprakash Power Ventures ltd
- ASAPP Information Group - India
- Energy Development Corp, Philippines
- The Treasury - Australian Government
- Coalindo Energy - Indonesia
- Aditya Birla Group - India
- Parry Sugars Refinery, India
- Cement Manufacturers Association - India
- Kartika Selabumi Mining - Indonesia
- Thiess Contractors Indonesia
- Ministry of Mines - Canada
- Banpu Public Company Limited - Thailand
- Eastern Coal Council - USA
- Jindal Steel & Power Ltd - India
- Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd - Australia
- London Commodity Brokers - England
- CIMB Investment Bank - Malaysia
- Gujarat Mineral Development Corp Ltd - India
- TeaM Sual Corporation - Philippines
- Kapuas Tunggal Persada - Indonesia
- Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission - India
- Ambuja Cements Ltd - India
- Vizag Seaport Private Limited - India
- Indo Tambangraya Megah - Indonesia
- Maheswari Brothers Coal Limited - India
- Parliament of New Zealand
- GAC Shipping (India) Pvt Ltd
- GN Power Mariveles Coal Plant, Philippines
- Pipit Mutiara Jaya. PT, Indonesia
- Mercator Lines Limited - India
- Formosa Plastics Group - Taiwan
- Bhoruka Overseas - Indonesia
- Asia Pacific Energy Resources Ventures Inc, Philippines
- Bayan Resources Tbk. - Indonesia
- Tata Chemicals Ltd - India
- IEA Clean Coal Centre - UK
- Intertek Mineral Services - Indonesia
- Videocon Industries ltd - India
- Bhushan Steel Limited - India
- Coastal Gujarat Power Limited - India
- Billiton Holdings Pty Ltd - Australia
- Krishnapatnam Port Company Ltd. - India
- Central Electricity Authority - India
- Iligan Light & Power Inc, Philippines
- SMC Global Power, Philippines
- Ind-Barath Power Infra Limited - India
- Minerals Council of Australia
- Sojitz Corporation - Japan
- Thai Mozambique Logistica
- Africa Commodities Group - South Africa
- Siam City Cement - Thailand
- Tamil Nadu electricity Board
- Karaikal Port Pvt Ltd - India
- Essar Steel Hazira Ltd - India
- Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand
- Ministry of Finance - Indonesia
- Indonesian Coal Mining Association
- PetroVietnam Power Coal Import and Supply Company
- McConnell Dowell - Australia
- Singapore Mercantile Exchange
- Karbindo Abesyapradhi - Indoneisa
- Binh Thuan Hamico - Vietnam
- Offshore Bulk Terminal Pte Ltd, Singapore
- Energy Link Ltd, New Zealand
- Kohat Cement Company Ltd. - Pakistan
- Merrill Lynch Commodities Europe
- Indian Energy Exchange, India
- Bank of Tokyo Mitsubishi UFJ Ltd
- MS Steel International - UAE
- Makarim & Taira - Indonesia
- Bukit Makmur.PT - Indonesia
- Global Green Power PLC Corporation, Philippines
- Bharathi Cement Corporation - India
- Aboitiz Power Corporation - Philippines
- Bhatia International Limited - India
- Vijayanagar Sugar Pvt Ltd - India
- AsiaOL BioFuels Corp., Philippines
- Trasteel International SA, Italy
- Anglo American - United Kingdom
- Star Paper Mills Limited - India
- Kepco SPC Power Corporation, Philippines
- CNBM International Corporation - China
- Sree Jayajothi Cements Limited - India
- Ministry of Transport, Egypt
- Larsen & Toubro Limited - India
- Madhucon Powers Ltd - India
- Mintek Dendrill Indonesia
- Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited - India
- Manunggal Multi Energi - Indonesia
- Petron Corporation, Philippines
- Australian Commodity Traders Exchange
- Directorate General of MIneral and Coal - Indonesia
- Miang Besar Coal Terminal - Indonesia
- Uttam Galva Steels Limited - India
- Semirara Mining and Power Corporation, Philippines
- Riau Bara Harum - Indonesia
- OPG Power Generation Pvt Ltd - India
- The University of Queensland
- Holcim Trading Pte Ltd - Singapore
- Directorate Of Revenue Intelligence - India
- Orica Mining Services - Indonesia
- Price Waterhouse Coopers - Russia
- Jorong Barutama Greston.PT - Indonesia
- Mercuria Energy - Indonesia
- Global Coal Blending Company Limited - Australia
- Malabar Cements Ltd - India
- Edison Trading Spa - Italy
- Agrawal Coal Company - India
- Semirara Mining Corp, Philippines
- Ceylon Electricity Board - Sri Lanka
- Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission - India
- Siam City Cement PLC, Thailand
- Attock Cement Pakistan Limited
- White Energy Company Limited
- Standard Chartered Bank - UAE
- Bukit Baiduri Energy - Indonesia
- Independent Power Producers Association of India
- Indian Oil Corporation Limited
- IHS Mccloskey Coal Group - USA
- Power Finance Corporation Ltd., India
- Chettinad Cement Corporation Ltd - India
- Coal and Oil Company - UAE
- Baramulti Group, Indonesia
- Economic Council, Georgia
- Central Java Power - Indonesia
- Kumho Petrochemical, South Korea
- Orica Australia Pty. Ltd.
- LBH Netherlands Bv - Netherlands
- ICICI Bank Limited - India
|
| |
| |
|
