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, 05 September 14
U.S. PRODUCED 19.2 MMST OF COAL LAST WEEK
COALspot.com – United States the world's second largest coal producer, produced approximately 19.20 million short tons (mmst) of coal in ...
Thursday, 04 September 14
PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LIMITED OF INDIA HAS DECIDED TO BUY IMPORTED COAL - HINDUSTAN TIMES
COALspot.com: The Punjab State Power Corporation Limited (PSPCL) has decided to buy imported coal to run its thermal plants, as reported by Hindust ...
Thursday, 04 September 14
INDONESIAN COAL MINERS MAY GET MORE TIME ON ROYALTIES - FITCH RATINGS
COALspot.com: Fitch Ratings says that coal miners in Indonesia are likely to get more time to repay the government the royalties that were set off ...
Thursday, 04 September 14
INDONESIAN COAL SWAPS SLIDE THIS PAST WEEK
COALspot.com: Indonesian coal swaps for average October 2014 decreased US$ 0.90 (-1.68%) day on day and US$ 1.80 (-3.31%) per mt week on week. The ...
Thursday, 04 September 14
CAPESIZE : SENTIMENT REMAINS POSITIVE FOR Q3/Q4 - FEARNRESEARCH
Handy
The Atlantic market has experienced more activity this week. Rates for TA´s are up about 8% w-o-w, much lead by an increasing number ...
|
|
|
Showing 3506 to 3510 news of total 6871 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
 |
|
|
| |
|
- Kohat Cement Company Ltd. - Pakistan
- Coalindo Energy - Indonesia
- Xindia Steels Limited - India
- PNOC Exploration Corporation - Philippines
- Eastern Coal Council - USA
- Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited - India
- Indian Energy Exchange, India
- Madhucon Powers Ltd - India
- Semirara Mining Corp, Philippines
- IEA Clean Coal Centre - UK
- Asmin Koalindo Tuhup - Indonesia
- Sinarmas Energy and Mining - Indonesia
- Star Paper Mills Limited - India
- San Jose City I Power Corp, Philippines
- LBH Netherlands Bv - Netherlands
- Malabar Cements Ltd - India
- Petrochimia International Co. Ltd.- Taiwan
- TNB Fuel Sdn Bhd - Malaysia
- Latin American Coal - Colombia
- Singapore Mercantile Exchange
- Binh Thuan Hamico - Vietnam
- Gujarat Mineral Development Corp Ltd - India
- Medco Energi Mining Internasional
- Indian Oil Corporation Limited
- Therma Luzon, Inc, Philippines
- Thiess Contractors Indonesia
- Alfred C Toepfer International GmbH - Germany
- PetroVietnam Power Coal Import and Supply Company
- Makarim & Taira - Indonesia
- IHS Mccloskey Coal Group - USA
- Orica Australia Pty. Ltd.
- Jindal Steel & Power Ltd - India
- Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission - India
- Eastern Energy - Thailand
- Antam Resourcindo - Indonesia
- Electricity Authority, New Zealand
- Aboitiz Power Corporation - Philippines
- Oldendorff Carriers - Singapore
- Banpu Public Company Limited - Thailand
- Sree Jayajothi Cements Limited - India
- Central Electricity Authority - India
- Petron Corporation, Philippines
- Heidelberg Cement - Germany
- Global Coal Blending Company Limited - Australia
- Filglen & Citicon Mining (HK) Ltd - Hong Kong
- TeaM Sual Corporation - Philippines
- GMR Energy Limited - India
- Billiton Holdings Pty Ltd - Australia
- Rio Tinto Coal - Australia
- GN Power Mariveles Coal Plant, Philippines
- MS Steel International - UAE
- Kumho Petrochemical, South Korea
- Salva Resources Pvt Ltd - India
- Grasim Industreis Ltd - India
- Sakthi Sugars Limited - India
- Chamber of Mines of South Africa
- SMG Consultants - Indonesia
- Savvy Resources Ltd - HongKong
- Holcim Trading Pte Ltd - Singapore
- Central Java Power - Indonesia
- Bukit Makmur.PT - Indonesia
- New Zealand Coal & Carbon
- Coastal Gujarat Power Limited - India
- McConnell Dowell - Australia
- Bharathi Cement Corporation - India
- Kepco SPC Power Corporation, Philippines
- CNBM International Corporation - China
- Planning Commission, India
- AsiaOL BioFuels Corp., Philippines
- Sical Logistics Limited - India
- Pendopo Energi Batubara - Indonesia
- Indika Energy - Indonesia
- International Coal Ventures Pvt Ltd - India
- The Treasury - Australian Government
- Sojitz Corporation - Japan
- Bahari Cakrawala Sebuku - Indonesia
- Parliament of New Zealand
- Mintek Dendrill Indonesia
- OPG Power Generation Pvt Ltd - India
- Attock Cement Pakistan Limited
- Bangladesh Power Developement Board
- Mercator Lines Limited - India
- Globalindo Alam Lestari - Indonesia
- Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd, - India
- Kaltim Prima Coal - Indonesia
- Georgia Ports Authority, United States
- Videocon Industries ltd - India
- VISA Power Limited - India
- GVK Power & Infra Limited - India
- European Bulk Services B.V. - Netherlands
- Intertek Mineral Services - Indonesia
- Africa Commodities Group - South Africa
- Mercuria Energy - Indonesia
- Dong Bac Coal Mineral Investment Coporation - Vietnam
- India Bulls Power Limited - India
- Siam City Cement PLC, Thailand
- Carbofer General Trading SA - India
- Iligan Light & Power Inc, Philippines
- Agrawal Coal Company - India
- Ministry of Finance - Indonesia
- GAC Shipping (India) Pvt Ltd
- Australian Commodity Traders Exchange
- South Luzon Thermal Energy Corporation
- Energy Link Ltd, New Zealand
- Commonwealth Bank - Australia
- Indogreen Group - Indonesia
- Miang Besar Coal Terminal - Indonesia
- Jorong Barutama Greston.PT - Indonesia
- SN Aboitiz Power Inc, Philippines
- Indo Tambangraya Megah - Indonesia
- Vedanta Resources Plc - India
- Price Waterhouse Coopers - Russia
- ASAPP Information Group - India
- Bhushan Steel Limited - India
- Dalmia Cement Bharat India
- Bukit Baiduri Energy - Indonesia
- Kideco Jaya Agung - Indonesia
- Port Waratah Coal Services - Australia
- Bank of Tokyo Mitsubishi UFJ Ltd
- Truba Alam Manunggal Engineering.Tbk - Indonesia
- ICICI Bank Limited - India
- Independent Power Producers Association of India
- Toyota Tsusho Corporation, Japan
- Minerals Council of Australia
- Romanian Commodities Exchange
- Asia Pacific Energy Resources Ventures Inc, Philippines
- Essar Steel Hazira Ltd - India
- Ind-Barath Power Infra Limited - India
- Bukit Asam (Persero) Tbk - Indonesia
- Riau Bara Harum - Indonesia
- Kapuas Tunggal Persada - Indonesia
- Thai Mozambique Logistica
- Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd - Australia
- Edison Trading Spa - Italy
- Cement Manufacturers Association - India
- Ministry of Mines - Canada
- Mjunction Services Limited - India
- Wilmar Investment Holdings
- Energy Development Corp, Philippines
- Orica Mining Services - Indonesia
- Simpson Spence & Young - Indonesia
- London Commodity Brokers - England
- Australian Coal Association
- Metalloyd Limited - United Kingdom
- Wood Mackenzie - Singapore
- Kartika Selabumi Mining - Indonesia
- Meralco Power Generation, Philippines
- Bayan Resources Tbk. - Indonesia
- Timah Investasi Mineral - Indoneisa
- Karaikal Port Pvt Ltd - India
- Ceylon Electricity Board - Sri Lanka
- Bhatia International Limited - India
- Sindya Power Generating Company Private Ltd
- Vizag Seaport Private Limited - India
- Altura Mining Limited, Indonesia
- Bhoruka Overseas - Indonesia
- Indonesian Coal Mining Association
- Trasteel International SA, Italy
- Karbindo Abesyapradhi - Indoneisa
- Global Green Power PLC Corporation, Philippines
- Kalimantan Lumbung Energi - Indonesia
- Pipit Mutiara Jaya. PT, Indonesia
- Gujarat Sidhee Cement - India
- Dr Ramakrishna Prasad Power Pvt Ltd - India
- Coal and Oil Company - UAE
- Bulk Trading Sa - Switzerland
- Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand
- Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission - India
- Standard Chartered Bank - UAE
- Jaiprakash Power Ventures ltd
- Ministry of Transport, Egypt
- Maheswari Brothers Coal Limited - India
- Aditya Birla Group - India
- Barasentosa Lestari - Indonesia
- Tata Chemicals Ltd - India
- Formosa Plastics Group - Taiwan
- Borneo Indobara - Indonesia
- Semirara Mining and Power Corporation, Philippines
- Directorate Of Revenue Intelligence - India
- Lanco Infratech Ltd - India
- Renaissance Capital - South Africa
- Anglo American - United Kingdom
- Straits Asia Resources Limited - Singapore
- PTC India Limited - India
- Sarangani Energy Corporation, Philippines
- Global Business Power Corporation, Philippines
- Parry Sugars Refinery, India
- Posco Energy - South Korea
- Vijayanagar Sugar Pvt Ltd - India
- Power Finance Corporation Ltd., India
- Interocean Group of Companies - India
- PowerSource Philippines DevCo
- Siam City Cement - Thailand
- Baramulti Group, Indonesia
- Directorate General of MIneral and Coal - Indonesia
- Meenaskhi Energy Private Limited - India
- The University of Queensland
- Larsen & Toubro Limited - India
- Tamil Nadu electricity Board
- Merrill Lynch Commodities Europe
- The State Trading Corporation of India Ltd
- Manunggal Multi Energi - Indonesia
- Offshore Bulk Terminal Pte Ltd, Singapore
- Marubeni Corporation - India
- CIMB Investment Bank - Malaysia
- Deloitte Consulting - India
- Economic Council, Georgia
- White Energy Company Limited
- Kobexindo Tractors - Indoneisa
- Krishnapatnam Port Company Ltd. - India
- SMC Global Power, Philippines
- Goldman Sachs - Singapore
- Cigading International Bulk Terminal - Indonesia
- Ambuja Cements Ltd - India
- Uttam Galva Steels Limited - India
- Chettinad Cement Corporation Ltd - India
- Samtan Co., Ltd - South Korea
|
| |
| |
|
