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, 19 September 14
PRICES FOR DRY BULK CARRIERS HAVEN'T CORRECTED ENOUGH, DESPITE LOWER THAN EXPECTED FREIGHT RATES - NIKOS ROUSSANOGLOU, HELLENIC SHIPPING
A lot has been said and written about the looming dry bulk market recovery over the past few months. However, even if this hasn’t been materi ...
Thursday, 18 September 14
INDONESIA'S JULY COAL EXPORT VOLUME DROPPED 5.13% M-O-M
COALspot.com: Indonesia, one of the world's largest coal producer and the global leading multi grade coal exporter shipped around $1.65* ...
Thursday, 18 September 14
PANAMAX : US GULF/CHINA FRONTHAUL ARE NOW PAYING TYPICALLY 14.5K + 450K BB - FEARNRESEARCH
Handy
We still see a firming tendency in the Atlantic and it is still ECSA and USG leading on. USG/Cont now up in about USD 17/18k for a Smax whi ...
Thursday, 18 September 14
ELECTRONIC BILLS OF LADING: A GUIDE TO PAPERLESS TRADING WHICH HAS TAKEN THE SHIPPING INDUSTRY BY STORM
Bimco has recently developed and published a charter party clause that specifically addresses the use of electronic bills of lading. Increasing use ...
Wednesday, 17 September 14
PANAMAX: LIMITED INTEREST IN BOTH BASINS; RISING TONNAGE - INTERMODAL
With the week starting off at a fast pace and with the positive momentum from the previous Friday seemingly sticking around for a bit longer, most ...
|
|
|
Showing 3481 to 3485 news of total 6871 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
 |
|
|
| |
|
- Thai Mozambique Logistica
- Bharathi Cement Corporation - India
- Jorong Barutama Greston.PT - Indonesia
- Baramulti Group, Indonesia
- Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission - India
- Filglen & Citicon Mining (HK) Ltd - Hong Kong
- Simpson Spence & Young - Indonesia
- Petrochimia International Co. Ltd.- Taiwan
- Karbindo Abesyapradhi - Indoneisa
- OPG Power Generation Pvt Ltd - India
- Asia Pacific Energy Resources Ventures Inc, Philippines
- Bayan Resources Tbk. - Indonesia
- Toyota Tsusho Corporation, Japan
- Standard Chartered Bank - UAE
- The Treasury - Australian Government
- Sinarmas Energy and Mining - Indonesia
- Salva Resources Pvt Ltd - India
- Attock Cement Pakistan Limited
- Independent Power Producers Association of India
- GAC Shipping (India) Pvt Ltd
- PowerSource Philippines DevCo
- Kapuas Tunggal Persada - Indonesia
- Aditya Birla Group - India
- Larsen & Toubro Limited - India
- Sical Logistics Limited - India
- Indo Tambangraya Megah - Indonesia
- London Commodity Brokers - England
- Petron Corporation, Philippines
- Energy Development Corp, Philippines
- Savvy Resources Ltd - HongKong
- Sakthi Sugars Limited - India
- Siam City Cement - Thailand
- GMR Energy Limited - India
- Trasteel International SA, Italy
- PNOC Exploration Corporation - Philippines
- Minerals Council of Australia
- The State Trading Corporation of India Ltd
- Pendopo Energi Batubara - Indonesia
- Dalmia Cement Bharat India
- New Zealand Coal & Carbon
- Directorate General of MIneral and Coal - Indonesia
- Sree Jayajothi Cements Limited - India
- Gujarat Mineral Development Corp Ltd - India
- Coal and Oil Company - UAE
- Coastal Gujarat Power Limited - India
- Indogreen Group - Indonesia
- PTC India Limited - India
- Borneo Indobara - Indonesia
- Banpu Public Company Limited - Thailand
- Star Paper Mills Limited - India
- Electricity Authority, New Zealand
- Singapore Mercantile Exchange
- Semirara Mining and Power Corporation, Philippines
- PetroVietnam Power Coal Import and Supply Company
- Central Electricity Authority - India
- Africa Commodities Group - South Africa
- Mjunction Services Limited - India
- Thiess Contractors Indonesia
- Mercator Lines Limited - India
- Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd - Australia
- Kepco SPC Power Corporation, Philippines
- South Luzon Thermal Energy Corporation
- Carbofer General Trading SA - India
- Mercuria Energy - Indonesia
- Ministry of Mines - Canada
- Kideco Jaya Agung - Indonesia
- Romanian Commodities Exchange
- Sindya Power Generating Company Private Ltd
- Power Finance Corporation Ltd., India
- Binh Thuan Hamico - Vietnam
- Deloitte Consulting - India
- Dr Ramakrishna Prasad Power Pvt Ltd - India
- Therma Luzon, Inc, Philippines
- Bukit Asam (Persero) Tbk - Indonesia
- Videocon Industries ltd - India
- Directorate Of Revenue Intelligence - India
- Bukit Baiduri Energy - Indonesia
- Global Business Power Corporation, Philippines
- Indika Energy - Indonesia
- Medco Energi Mining Internasional
- Planning Commission, India
- IHS Mccloskey Coal Group - USA
- Formosa Plastics Group - Taiwan
- Sojitz Corporation - Japan
- Bahari Cakrawala Sebuku - Indonesia
- Parry Sugars Refinery, India
- International Coal Ventures Pvt Ltd - India
- Central Java Power - Indonesia
- CIMB Investment Bank - Malaysia
- Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission - India
- MS Steel International - UAE
- Eastern Energy - Thailand
- Gujarat Sidhee Cement - India
- Goldman Sachs - Singapore
- Truba Alam Manunggal Engineering.Tbk - Indonesia
- Antam Resourcindo - Indonesia
- Price Waterhouse Coopers - Russia
- Alfred C Toepfer International GmbH - Germany
- Jaiprakash Power Ventures ltd
- Oldendorff Carriers - Singapore
- Maheswari Brothers Coal Limited - India
- Australian Coal Association
- San Jose City I Power Corp, Philippines
- Coalindo Energy - Indonesia
- Georgia Ports Authority, United States
- Edison Trading Spa - Italy
- Grasim Industreis Ltd - India
- Global Coal Blending Company Limited - Australia
- Bangladesh Power Developement Board
- Holcim Trading Pte Ltd - Singapore
- Ambuja Cements Ltd - India
- Heidelberg Cement - Germany
- Kohat Cement Company Ltd. - Pakistan
- Kalimantan Lumbung Energi - Indonesia
- Sarangani Energy Corporation, Philippines
- Indian Oil Corporation Limited
- Globalindo Alam Lestari - Indonesia
- Merrill Lynch Commodities Europe
- Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd, - India
- Kaltim Prima Coal - Indonesia
- IEA Clean Coal Centre - UK
- Australian Commodity Traders Exchange
- AsiaOL BioFuels Corp., Philippines
- Tata Chemicals Ltd - India
- VISA Power Limited - India
- SN Aboitiz Power Inc, Philippines
- Indonesian Coal Mining Association
- Orica Mining Services - Indonesia
- Wood Mackenzie - Singapore
- Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited - India
- Semirara Mining Corp, Philippines
- Malabar Cements Ltd - India
- Vijayanagar Sugar Pvt Ltd - India
- Lanco Infratech Ltd - India
- Pipit Mutiara Jaya. PT, Indonesia
- Altura Mining Limited, Indonesia
- Kartika Selabumi Mining - Indonesia
- European Bulk Services B.V. - Netherlands
- Siam City Cement PLC, Thailand
- Ceylon Electricity Board - Sri Lanka
- Asmin Koalindo Tuhup - Indonesia
- Bukit Makmur.PT - Indonesia
- Riau Bara Harum - Indonesia
- Manunggal Multi Energi - Indonesia
- Bulk Trading Sa - Switzerland
- The University of Queensland
- Essar Steel Hazira Ltd - India
- Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand
- Meralco Power Generation, Philippines
- Xindia Steels Limited - India
- Offshore Bulk Terminal Pte Ltd, Singapore
- Latin American Coal - Colombia
- Energy Link Ltd, New Zealand
- LBH Netherlands Bv - Netherlands
- Economic Council, Georgia
- Anglo American - United Kingdom
- Timah Investasi Mineral - Indoneisa
- GVK Power & Infra Limited - India
- Meenaskhi Energy Private Limited - India
- Renaissance Capital - South Africa
- Kumho Petrochemical, South Korea
- SMC Global Power, Philippines
- Posco Energy - South Korea
- White Energy Company Limited
- McConnell Dowell - Australia
- Samtan Co., Ltd - South Korea
- Miang Besar Coal Terminal - Indonesia
- Madhucon Powers Ltd - India
- Chamber of Mines of South Africa
- Dong Bac Coal Mineral Investment Coporation - Vietnam
- Bhatia International Limited - India
- Ind-Barath Power Infra Limited - India
- Eastern Coal Council - USA
- Cigading International Bulk Terminal - Indonesia
- Aboitiz Power Corporation - Philippines
- Bhushan Steel Limited - India
- Ministry of Transport, Egypt
- Vizag Seaport Private Limited - India
- Ministry of Finance - Indonesia
- TeaM Sual Corporation - Philippines
- Agrawal Coal Company - India
- Bank of Tokyo Mitsubishi UFJ Ltd
- Bhoruka Overseas - Indonesia
- Orica Australia Pty. Ltd.
- GN Power Mariveles Coal Plant, Philippines
- Straits Asia Resources Limited - Singapore
- Uttam Galva Steels Limited - India
- Kobexindo Tractors - Indoneisa
- Karaikal Port Pvt Ltd - India
- Billiton Holdings Pty Ltd - Australia
- Indian Energy Exchange, India
- CNBM International Corporation - China
- Tamil Nadu electricity Board
- TNB Fuel Sdn Bhd - Malaysia
- Chettinad Cement Corporation Ltd - India
- SMG Consultants - Indonesia
- India Bulls Power Limited - India
- Interocean Group of Companies - India
- Iligan Light & Power Inc, Philippines
- Parliament of New Zealand
- Rio Tinto Coal - Australia
- Barasentosa Lestari - Indonesia
- Commonwealth Bank - Australia
- ICICI Bank Limited - India
- Marubeni Corporation - India
- Wilmar Investment Holdings
- Global Green Power PLC Corporation, Philippines
- Jindal Steel & Power Ltd - India
- Vedanta Resources Plc - India
- Port Waratah Coal Services - Australia
- Metalloyd Limited - United Kingdom
- Cement Manufacturers Association - India
- Makarim & Taira - Indonesia
- Intertek Mineral Services - Indonesia
- ASAPP Information Group - India
- Krishnapatnam Port Company Ltd. - India
- Mintek Dendrill Indonesia
|
| |
| |
|
