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.
|
|
Tuesday, 09 September 14
WEAK M&A DESPITE ABUNDANT DISTRESSED INDONESIA COAL ASSETS - FITCH RATINGS
COALspot.com: Fitch Ratings says that a meaningful level of merger and acquisition (M&A) activity leading to a consolidation of the coal sector ...
Tuesday, 09 September 14
PORT OF NEWCASTLE SHIPPED 13.207 MTN OF COAL IN AUGUST; TRADE VALUE AROUND $1.17 BILLION
COALspot.com: The Port of Newcastle, Australia’s major trading ports and the world’s largest coal export port, has shipped $1.17 billio ...
Monday, 08 September 14
SUB-BIT FOB INDONESIA COAL SWAP UNDERPERFORMED LAST WEEK
COALspot.com: Indonesian coal swaps for average October 2014 decreased US$ 0.20 (-0.39%) day on day and US$ 1.60 (-3.04%) per mt week on week. The ...
Monday, 08 September 14
API 8 CFR SOUTH CHINA COAL SWAP FOR DELIVERY JAN'15 CLOSED AT US$ 66.30 PMT W/E 5 SEPTEMBER 2014; LOST 5.15% M-O-M
COALspot.com: API 8 CFR South China Coal swap for delivery in October 2014 decreased US$ 0.15 (-0.23%) day on day and US$ 2.05 (-3.04%) week on wee ...
Monday, 08 September 14
CHINESE IRON ORE IMPORT DEMAND VERY STRONG - COMMODORE
COALspot.com: 30 dry bulk vessels were chartered in the spot iron ore market last week to haul iron ore import cargoes to Chinese buyers.
Acco ...
|
|
|
Showing 3496 to 3500 news of total 6871 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
 |
|
|
| |
|
- Kaltim Prima Coal - Indonesia
- Posco Energy - South Korea
- SN Aboitiz Power Inc, Philippines
- Sojitz Corporation - Japan
- Toyota Tsusho Corporation, Japan
- Power Finance Corporation Ltd., India
- CNBM International Corporation - China
- Meralco Power Generation, Philippines
- Global Coal Blending Company Limited - Australia
- Bayan Resources Tbk. - Indonesia
- White Energy Company Limited
- Price Waterhouse Coopers - Russia
- LBH Netherlands Bv - Netherlands
- Bukit Baiduri Energy - Indonesia
- Miang Besar Coal Terminal - Indonesia
- Mjunction Services Limited - India
- Asia Pacific Energy Resources Ventures Inc, Philippines
- Singapore Mercantile Exchange
- Semirara Mining and Power Corporation, Philippines
- South Luzon Thermal Energy Corporation
- Bhatia International Limited - India
- Altura Mining Limited, Indonesia
- The Treasury - Australian Government
- Bhoruka Overseas - Indonesia
- Indian Oil Corporation Limited
- SMG Consultants - Indonesia
- GMR Energy Limited - India
- Globalindo Alam Lestari - Indonesia
- Sical Logistics Limited - India
- Central Electricity Authority - India
- Kobexindo Tractors - Indoneisa
- VISA Power Limited - India
- Krishnapatnam Port Company Ltd. - India
- Larsen & Toubro Limited - India
- Orica Australia Pty. Ltd.
- Global Green Power PLC Corporation, Philippines
- Kohat Cement Company Ltd. - Pakistan
- Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission - India
- Metalloyd Limited - United Kingdom
- Coal and Oil Company - UAE
- Commonwealth Bank - Australia
- Mercator Lines Limited - India
- Carbofer General Trading SA - India
- Kumho Petrochemical, South Korea
- Attock Cement Pakistan Limited
- Anglo American - United Kingdom
- Makarim & Taira - Indonesia
- Offshore Bulk Terminal Pte Ltd, Singapore
- Ceylon Electricity Board - Sri Lanka
- Parliament of New Zealand
- Oldendorff Carriers - Singapore
- Xindia Steels Limited - India
- Bhushan Steel Limited - India
- Minerals Council of Australia
- Gujarat Mineral Development Corp Ltd - India
- Pendopo Energi Batubara - Indonesia
- Interocean Group of Companies - India
- Intertek Mineral Services - Indonesia
- Edison Trading Spa - Italy
- Chettinad Cement Corporation Ltd - India
- Ambuja Cements Ltd - India
- Alfred C Toepfer International GmbH - Germany
- McConnell Dowell - Australia
- Energy Link Ltd, New Zealand
- Bahari Cakrawala Sebuku - Indonesia
- CIMB Investment Bank - Malaysia
- PowerSource Philippines DevCo
- Latin American Coal - Colombia
- Manunggal Multi Energi - Indonesia
- Riau Bara Harum - Indonesia
- Jorong Barutama Greston.PT - Indonesia
- Madhucon Powers Ltd - India
- Billiton Holdings Pty Ltd - Australia
- Agrawal Coal Company - India
- Dr Ramakrishna Prasad Power Pvt Ltd - India
- Kepco SPC Power Corporation, Philippines
- Sakthi Sugars Limited - India
- Kalimantan Lumbung Energi - Indonesia
- Asmin Koalindo Tuhup - Indonesia
- Ministry of Transport, Egypt
- Kideco Jaya Agung - Indonesia
- Australian Coal Association
- Malabar Cements Ltd - India
- Mintek Dendrill Indonesia
- Mercuria Energy - Indonesia
- Sarangani Energy Corporation, Philippines
- Deloitte Consulting - India
- Wood Mackenzie - Singapore
- Straits Asia Resources Limited - Singapore
- Electricity Authority, New Zealand
- Baramulti Group, Indonesia
- Siam City Cement PLC, Thailand
- Binh Thuan Hamico - Vietnam
- Meenaskhi Energy Private Limited - India
- Bharathi Cement Corporation - India
- Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand
- GAC Shipping (India) Pvt Ltd
- Merrill Lynch Commodities Europe
- Ministry of Finance - Indonesia
- Banpu Public Company Limited - Thailand
- Bulk Trading Sa - Switzerland
- Indo Tambangraya Megah - Indonesia
- Dalmia Cement Bharat India
- The University of Queensland
- Sindya Power Generating Company Private Ltd
- Planning Commission, India
- Barasentosa Lestari - Indonesia
- Heidelberg Cement - Germany
- New Zealand Coal & Carbon
- Parry Sugars Refinery, India
- Indogreen Group - Indonesia
- Timah Investasi Mineral - Indoneisa
- Vedanta Resources Plc - India
- AsiaOL BioFuels Corp., Philippines
- Karbindo Abesyapradhi - Indoneisa
- Holcim Trading Pte Ltd - Singapore
- Simpson Spence & Young - Indonesia
- Bukit Makmur.PT - Indonesia
- Directorate General of MIneral and Coal - Indonesia
- Medco Energi Mining Internasional
- MS Steel International - UAE
- Kartika Selabumi Mining - Indonesia
- Independent Power Producers Association of India
- Ministry of Mines - Canada
- Aditya Birla Group - India
- Bank of Tokyo Mitsubishi UFJ Ltd
- Indika Energy - Indonesia
- Rio Tinto Coal - Australia
- International Coal Ventures Pvt Ltd - India
- OPG Power Generation Pvt Ltd - India
- Eastern Coal Council - USA
- IHS Mccloskey Coal Group - USA
- TeaM Sual Corporation - Philippines
- Vizag Seaport Private Limited - India
- European Bulk Services B.V. - Netherlands
- Therma Luzon, Inc, Philippines
- Jindal Steel & Power Ltd - India
- Bukit Asam (Persero) Tbk - Indonesia
- TNB Fuel Sdn Bhd - Malaysia
- Bangladesh Power Developement Board
- Sinarmas Energy and Mining - Indonesia
- Thiess Contractors Indonesia
- Savvy Resources Ltd - HongKong
- Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited - India
- Economic Council, Georgia
- Iligan Light & Power Inc, Philippines
- Karaikal Port Pvt Ltd - India
- Marubeni Corporation - India
- Vijayanagar Sugar Pvt Ltd - India
- SMC Global Power, Philippines
- Essar Steel Hazira Ltd - India
- Truba Alam Manunggal Engineering.Tbk - Indonesia
- Petrochimia International Co. Ltd.- Taiwan
- Dong Bac Coal Mineral Investment Coporation - Vietnam
- Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission - India
- Formosa Plastics Group - Taiwan
- Videocon Industries ltd - India
- Cement Manufacturers Association - India
- Siam City Cement - Thailand
- Star Paper Mills Limited - India
- Antam Resourcindo - Indonesia
- IEA Clean Coal Centre - UK
- Standard Chartered Bank - UAE
- London Commodity Brokers - England
- Coalindo Energy - Indonesia
- Pipit Mutiara Jaya. PT, Indonesia
- GVK Power & Infra Limited - India
- Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd - Australia
- Coastal Gujarat Power Limited - India
- PTC India Limited - India
- Grasim Industreis Ltd - India
- Africa Commodities Group - South Africa
- Port Waratah Coal Services - Australia
- Global Business Power Corporation, Philippines
- Jaiprakash Power Ventures ltd
- Semirara Mining Corp, Philippines
- Tamil Nadu electricity Board
- Cigading International Bulk Terminal - Indonesia
- San Jose City I Power Corp, Philippines
- India Bulls Power Limited - India
- Aboitiz Power Corporation - Philippines
- Chamber of Mines of South Africa
- Sree Jayajothi Cements Limited - India
- Wilmar Investment Holdings
- Trasteel International SA, Italy
- Gujarat Sidhee Cement - India
- Directorate Of Revenue Intelligence - India
- The State Trading Corporation of India Ltd
- Borneo Indobara - Indonesia
- Tata Chemicals Ltd - India
- Filglen & Citicon Mining (HK) Ltd - Hong Kong
- Maheswari Brothers Coal Limited - India
- Samtan Co., Ltd - South Korea
- Salva Resources Pvt Ltd - India
- Romanian Commodities Exchange
- Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd, - India
- Goldman Sachs - Singapore
- Ind-Barath Power Infra Limited - India
- Uttam Galva Steels Limited - India
- Lanco Infratech Ltd - India
- Indonesian Coal Mining Association
- ICICI Bank Limited - India
- Orica Mining Services - Indonesia
- Kapuas Tunggal Persada - Indonesia
- Thai Mozambique Logistica
- Georgia Ports Authority, United States
- Indian Energy Exchange, India
- PetroVietnam Power Coal Import and Supply Company
- GN Power Mariveles Coal Plant, Philippines
- Petron Corporation, Philippines
- Energy Development Corp, Philippines
- Central Java Power - Indonesia
- Australian Commodity Traders Exchange
- Renaissance Capital - South Africa
- PNOC Exploration Corporation - Philippines
- ASAPP Information Group - India
- Eastern Energy - Thailand
|
| |
| |
|
