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.
|
|
Friday, 26 September 14
NEWCASTLMAXES ARE THE MOST SOUGHT AFTER VESSELS BY SHIP OWNERS TODAY SAYS VESSELS VALUE
KNOWLEDGE TO ELEVATE
Determining a ship’s fair value can be a very tricky business, especially when you’re the one paying. As such ...
Thursday, 25 September 14
LACK OF COAL BUSINESS PUSHING DOWN PANAMAX EARNINGS IN PACIFIC
Handy
In the Atlantic we see rates steady climbing upwards. More coal cargoes out of USG and USEC are helping the TA market which is up some USD ...
Wednesday, 24 September 14
ADARO AGREED TO REDUCE ITS CONCESSION AREA TO 31,379.8 HECTARES
COALspot.com: PT Adaro Energy Tbk (Adaro Energy) today announced that, PT Adaro Indonesia (AI), its wholly owned subsidiary, entered into a M ...
Wednesday, 24 September 14
CAPESIZE: ACTIVITY IN BOTH BASINS WAS UNIMPRESSIVE
COALspot.com: The end of the week prior seems to have marked the tone for the days that followed, with the Dry Bulk market giving up a significant ...
Tuesday, 23 September 14
MEDCO TO INCREASE ITS COAL PRODUCTION NEXT YEAR
COALspot.com: PT Medco Energi Internasional is looking to increase its coal production next year, supported by the launch of operations at its Duta ...
|
|
|
Showing 3471 to 3475 news of total 6871 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
 |
|
|
| |
|
- Central Java Power - Indonesia
- South Luzon Thermal Energy Corporation
- Bhatia International Limited - India
- Pipit Mutiara Jaya. PT, Indonesia
- ASAPP Information Group - India
- Toyota Tsusho Corporation, Japan
- CNBM International Corporation - China
- The University of Queensland
- Kideco Jaya Agung - Indonesia
- Mintek Dendrill Indonesia
- Independent Power Producers Association of India
- Alfred C Toepfer International GmbH - Germany
- Orica Australia Pty. Ltd.
- Kartika Selabumi Mining - Indonesia
- Parry Sugars Refinery, India
- PTC India Limited - India
- Bukit Asam (Persero) Tbk - Indonesia
- Altura Mining Limited, Indonesia
- Indogreen Group - Indonesia
- TNB Fuel Sdn Bhd - Malaysia
- SMC Global Power, Philippines
- Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited - India
- Jaiprakash Power Ventures ltd
- Directorate General of MIneral and Coal - Indonesia
- Ambuja Cements Ltd - India
- VISA Power Limited - India
- Coalindo Energy - Indonesia
- Karbindo Abesyapradhi - Indoneisa
- Formosa Plastics Group - Taiwan
- Planning Commission, India
- Price Waterhouse Coopers - Russia
- Marubeni Corporation - India
- Aboitiz Power Corporation - Philippines
- San Jose City I Power Corp, Philippines
- Commonwealth Bank - Australia
- Wilmar Investment Holdings
- Global Coal Blending Company Limited - Australia
- Malabar Cements Ltd - India
- Karaikal Port Pvt Ltd - India
- Rio Tinto Coal - Australia
- London Commodity Brokers - England
- Semirara Mining and Power Corporation, Philippines
- Petron Corporation, Philippines
- Asmin Koalindo Tuhup - Indonesia
- Sinarmas Energy and Mining - Indonesia
- Anglo American - United Kingdom
- Port Waratah Coal Services - Australia
- Offshore Bulk Terminal Pte Ltd, Singapore
- MS Steel International - UAE
- Standard Chartered Bank - UAE
- Sakthi Sugars Limited - India
- European Bulk Services B.V. - Netherlands
- LBH Netherlands Bv - Netherlands
- Eastern Coal Council - USA
- Holcim Trading Pte Ltd - Singapore
- Mercator Lines Limited - India
- Globalindo Alam Lestari - Indonesia
- Star Paper Mills Limited - India
- Lanco Infratech Ltd - India
- Jindal Steel & Power Ltd - India
- Gujarat Mineral Development Corp Ltd - India
- GVK Power & Infra Limited - India
- GAC Shipping (India) Pvt Ltd
- ICICI Bank Limited - India
- Cigading International Bulk Terminal - Indonesia
- Meenaskhi Energy Private Limited - India
- Xindia Steels Limited - India
- SN Aboitiz Power Inc, Philippines
- Truba Alam Manunggal Engineering.Tbk - Indonesia
- Siam City Cement PLC, Thailand
- Banpu Public Company Limited - Thailand
- Posco Energy - South Korea
- International Coal Ventures Pvt Ltd - India
- Romanian Commodities Exchange
- Grasim Industreis Ltd - India
- Orica Mining Services - Indonesia
- Barasentosa Lestari - Indonesia
- Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd - Australia
- Gujarat Sidhee Cement - India
- Maheswari Brothers Coal Limited - India
- Borneo Indobara - Indonesia
- Parliament of New Zealand
- Indian Oil Corporation Limited
- Antam Resourcindo - Indonesia
- IEA Clean Coal Centre - UK
- Simpson Spence & Young - Indonesia
- Indian Energy Exchange, India
- Renaissance Capital - South Africa
- Central Electricity Authority - India
- Pendopo Energi Batubara - Indonesia
- Carbofer General Trading SA - India
- Sarangani Energy Corporation, Philippines
- Sical Logistics Limited - India
- Thiess Contractors Indonesia
- Chamber of Mines of South Africa
- Attock Cement Pakistan Limited
- Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd, - India
- Minerals Council of Australia
- Semirara Mining Corp, Philippines
- Economic Council, Georgia
- Dong Bac Coal Mineral Investment Coporation - Vietnam
- Trasteel International SA, Italy
- Riau Bara Harum - Indonesia
- Binh Thuan Hamico - Vietnam
- PetroVietnam Power Coal Import and Supply Company
- Therma Luzon, Inc, Philippines
- Ind-Barath Power Infra Limited - India
- Bhushan Steel Limited - India
- Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission - India
- The State Trading Corporation of India Ltd
- Energy Link Ltd, New Zealand
- Bukit Baiduri Energy - Indonesia
- Filglen & Citicon Mining (HK) Ltd - Hong Kong
- Vijayanagar Sugar Pvt Ltd - India
- Power Finance Corporation Ltd., India
- Bank of Tokyo Mitsubishi UFJ Ltd
- The Treasury - Australian Government
- Ministry of Transport, Egypt
- Heidelberg Cement - Germany
- Intertek Mineral Services - Indonesia
- Larsen & Toubro Limited - India
- Ministry of Mines - Canada
- Kohat Cement Company Ltd. - Pakistan
- Singapore Mercantile Exchange
- Sindya Power Generating Company Private Ltd
- Bulk Trading Sa - Switzerland
- Videocon Industries ltd - India
- Siam City Cement - Thailand
- Cement Manufacturers Association - India
- Manunggal Multi Energi - Indonesia
- Samtan Co., Ltd - South Korea
- Africa Commodities Group - South Africa
- Makarim & Taira - Indonesia
- Vedanta Resources Plc - India
- Vizag Seaport Private Limited - India
- Coastal Gujarat Power Limited - India
- Krishnapatnam Port Company Ltd. - India
- Timah Investasi Mineral - Indoneisa
- Deloitte Consulting - India
- Madhucon Powers Ltd - India
- Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand
- PowerSource Philippines DevCo
- Savvy Resources Ltd - HongKong
- Bhoruka Overseas - Indonesia
- Energy Development Corp, Philippines
- Straits Asia Resources Limited - Singapore
- Metalloyd Limited - United Kingdom
- Merrill Lynch Commodities Europe
- Kalimantan Lumbung Energi - Indonesia
- AsiaOL BioFuels Corp., Philippines
- Mjunction Services Limited - India
- Latin American Coal - Colombia
- Global Business Power Corporation, Philippines
- McConnell Dowell - Australia
- Indika Energy - Indonesia
- Bharathi Cement Corporation - India
- India Bulls Power Limited - India
- Bahari Cakrawala Sebuku - Indonesia
- TeaM Sual Corporation - Philippines
- Directorate Of Revenue Intelligence - India
- Kumho Petrochemical, South Korea
- Tamil Nadu electricity Board
- GN Power Mariveles Coal Plant, Philippines
- Dr Ramakrishna Prasad Power Pvt Ltd - India
- Bukit Makmur.PT - Indonesia
- Jorong Barutama Greston.PT - Indonesia
- Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission - India
- Electricity Authority, New Zealand
- Georgia Ports Authority, United States
- Thai Mozambique Logistica
- Agrawal Coal Company - India
- Oldendorff Carriers - Singapore
- Kepco SPC Power Corporation, Philippines
- Kaltim Prima Coal - Indonesia
- Medco Energi Mining Internasional
- Goldman Sachs - Singapore
- Coal and Oil Company - UAE
- Baramulti Group, Indonesia
- Australian Coal Association
- Australian Commodity Traders Exchange
- Salva Resources Pvt Ltd - India
- Aditya Birla Group - India
- Asia Pacific Energy Resources Ventures Inc, Philippines
- SMG Consultants - Indonesia
- Interocean Group of Companies - India
- White Energy Company Limited
- Essar Steel Hazira Ltd - India
- Bayan Resources Tbk. - Indonesia
- Chettinad Cement Corporation Ltd - India
- Meralco Power Generation, Philippines
- Dalmia Cement Bharat India
- Wood Mackenzie - Singapore
- Petrochimia International Co. Ltd.- Taiwan
- Miang Besar Coal Terminal - Indonesia
- New Zealand Coal & Carbon
- OPG Power Generation Pvt Ltd - India
- Edison Trading Spa - Italy
- Mercuria Energy - Indonesia
- Indonesian Coal Mining Association
- Ministry of Finance - Indonesia
- Kapuas Tunggal Persada - Indonesia
- Uttam Galva Steels Limited - India
- Bangladesh Power Developement Board
- Eastern Energy - Thailand
- CIMB Investment Bank - Malaysia
- Billiton Holdings Pty Ltd - Australia
- Tata Chemicals Ltd - India
- Ceylon Electricity Board - Sri Lanka
- GMR Energy Limited - India
- Sree Jayajothi Cements Limited - India
- Indo Tambangraya Megah - Indonesia
- Kobexindo Tractors - Indoneisa
- Sojitz Corporation - Japan
- PNOC Exploration Corporation - Philippines
- IHS Mccloskey Coal Group - USA
- Global Green Power PLC Corporation, Philippines
- Iligan Light & Power Inc, Philippines
|
| |
| |
|
