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, 30 August 14
INDIAN GOVERNMENT SHOULD TAKE NOTICE: THERMAL COAL IMPORT PRICES EXTREMELY LOW - COMMODORE RESEARCH
COALspot.com: Both Indonesian and Australian thermal coal prices are at the lowest levels seen this decade, with Indonesia's monthly benchmark ...
Saturday, 30 August 14
RECOVERY IN SIGHT FOR THE DRY BULK SHIPPING MARKET - DREWRY SHIPPING CONSULTANTS
Despite weak freight rates so far this year, Dry Bulk shipping earnings are forecast to recover as demand for both major and minor bulk commodities ...
Friday, 29 August 14
U.S. WEEKLY COAL PRODUCTION DROPS 1.3 PERCENT, EIA SAYS
COALspot.com – United States the world's second largest coal producer, produced approximately 19.40 million short tons (mmst) of coal in ...
Friday, 29 August 14
ADARO'S PROFITS SINK FURTHER AMID FALL IN COAL PRICES - JP
Adaro Energy, one of the country’s largest coal miners, has reported a 31 percent drop in net profit in the first half of this year as global ...
Friday, 29 August 14
CHINESE LIGNITE IMPORTS: QUANTITY OVER QUALITY? - CLARKSONS
In the first half of 2014, Chinese seaborne coal imports declined 0.4% y-o-y to 148mt, largely reflecting a 3.3% fall in imports of steam coal. Mea ...
|
|
|
Showing 3516 to 3520 news of total 6871 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
 |
|
|
| |
|
- Offshore Bulk Terminal Pte Ltd, Singapore
- Indian Energy Exchange, India
- Asia Pacific Energy Resources Ventures Inc, Philippines
- Formosa Plastics Group - Taiwan
- SN Aboitiz Power Inc, Philippines
- Star Paper Mills Limited - India
- ICICI Bank Limited - India
- Kalimantan Lumbung Energi - Indonesia
- Tamil Nadu electricity Board
- Bhatia International Limited - India
- Bank of Tokyo Mitsubishi UFJ Ltd
- Indonesian Coal Mining Association
- Marubeni Corporation - India
- GVK Power & Infra Limited - India
- Indogreen Group - Indonesia
- Deloitte Consulting - India
- Wood Mackenzie - Singapore
- Latin American Coal - Colombia
- Sical Logistics Limited - India
- Africa Commodities Group - South Africa
- TNB Fuel Sdn Bhd - Malaysia
- Riau Bara Harum - Indonesia
- Anglo American - United Kingdom
- Maheswari Brothers Coal Limited - India
- Australian Commodity Traders Exchange
- Carbofer General Trading SA - India
- Alfred C Toepfer International GmbH - Germany
- Madhucon Powers Ltd - India
- Bhushan Steel Limited - India
- Energy Link Ltd, New Zealand
- Mintek Dendrill Indonesia
- Sinarmas Energy and Mining - Indonesia
- Chamber of Mines of South Africa
- Barasentosa Lestari - Indonesia
- Siam City Cement - Thailand
- Chettinad Cement Corporation Ltd - India
- Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand
- Orica Mining Services - Indonesia
- Ambuja Cements Ltd - India
- Indika Energy - Indonesia
- Videocon Industries ltd - India
- Ministry of Mines - Canada
- Pendopo Energi Batubara - Indonesia
- VISA Power Limited - India
- Cement Manufacturers Association - India
- McConnell Dowell - Australia
- Oldendorff Carriers - Singapore
- Rio Tinto Coal - Australia
- Eastern Energy - Thailand
- Makarim & Taira - Indonesia
- Lanco Infratech Ltd - India
- Bhoruka Overseas - Indonesia
- Truba Alam Manunggal Engineering.Tbk - Indonesia
- Kobexindo Tractors - Indoneisa
- Dong Bac Coal Mineral Investment Coporation - Vietnam
- PNOC Exploration Corporation - Philippines
- Jorong Barutama Greston.PT - Indonesia
- Kaltim Prima Coal - Indonesia
- Petrochimia International Co. Ltd.- Taiwan
- ASAPP Information Group - India
- Vedanta Resources Plc - India
- Pipit Mutiara Jaya. PT, Indonesia
- Intertek Mineral Services - Indonesia
- Australian Coal Association
- Globalindo Alam Lestari - Indonesia
- India Bulls Power Limited - India
- PetroVietnam Power Coal Import and Supply Company
- OPG Power Generation Pvt Ltd - India
- Kapuas Tunggal Persada - Indonesia
- Krishnapatnam Port Company Ltd. - India
- Therma Luzon, Inc, Philippines
- SMC Global Power, Philippines
- Global Green Power PLC Corporation, Philippines
- Antam Resourcindo - Indonesia
- Baramulti Group, Indonesia
- Larsen & Toubro Limited - India
- Vijayanagar Sugar Pvt Ltd - India
- Wilmar Investment Holdings
- Siam City Cement PLC, Thailand
- Mercator Lines Limited - India
- Central Electricity Authority - India
- IHS Mccloskey Coal Group - USA
- Global Business Power Corporation, Philippines
- European Bulk Services B.V. - Netherlands
- Georgia Ports Authority, United States
- Uttam Galva Steels Limited - India
- Bukit Asam (Persero) Tbk - Indonesia
- London Commodity Brokers - England
- Gujarat Mineral Development Corp Ltd - India
- Merrill Lynch Commodities Europe
- Grasim Industreis Ltd - India
- The Treasury - Australian Government
- Renaissance Capital - South Africa
- Straits Asia Resources Limited - Singapore
- Indo Tambangraya Megah - Indonesia
- Filglen & Citicon Mining (HK) Ltd - Hong Kong
- Bukit Makmur.PT - Indonesia
- Commonwealth Bank - Australia
- Sarangani Energy Corporation, Philippines
- Medco Energi Mining Internasional
- Xindia Steels Limited - India
- GAC Shipping (India) Pvt Ltd
- Meralco Power Generation, Philippines
- Parry Sugars Refinery, India
- Kideco Jaya Agung - Indonesia
- Semirara Mining Corp, Philippines
- Manunggal Multi Energi - Indonesia
- Kohat Cement Company Ltd. - Pakistan
- Kumho Petrochemical, South Korea
- Minerals Council of Australia
- Ceylon Electricity Board - Sri Lanka
- Ind-Barath Power Infra Limited - India
- Global Coal Blending Company Limited - Australia
- Mercuria Energy - Indonesia
- Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission - India
- Billiton Holdings Pty Ltd - Australia
- Vizag Seaport Private Limited - India
- Ministry of Finance - Indonesia
- Essar Steel Hazira Ltd - India
- Standard Chartered Bank - UAE
- Asmin Koalindo Tuhup - Indonesia
- Thai Mozambique Logistica
- Dr Ramakrishna Prasad Power Pvt Ltd - India
- Sakthi Sugars Limited - India
- Holcim Trading Pte Ltd - Singapore
- Parliament of New Zealand
- Heidelberg Cement - Germany
- Sojitz Corporation - Japan
- Power Finance Corporation Ltd., India
- Electricity Authority, New Zealand
- Iligan Light & Power Inc, Philippines
- Independent Power Producers Association of India
- Miang Besar Coal Terminal - Indonesia
- Jindal Steel & Power Ltd - India
- Tata Chemicals Ltd - India
- Samtan Co., Ltd - South Korea
- Bharathi Cement Corporation - India
- International Coal Ventures Pvt Ltd - India
- GMR Energy Limited - India
- Binh Thuan Hamico - Vietnam
- Altura Mining Limited, Indonesia
- AsiaOL BioFuels Corp., Philippines
- Central Java Power - Indonesia
- The University of Queensland
- PTC India Limited - India
- MS Steel International - UAE
- Petron Corporation, Philippines
- Toyota Tsusho Corporation, Japan
- The State Trading Corporation of India Ltd
- Energy Development Corp, Philippines
- Cigading International Bulk Terminal - Indonesia
- Salva Resources Pvt Ltd - India
- Interocean Group of Companies - India
- Banpu Public Company Limited - Thailand
- Dalmia Cement Bharat India
- South Luzon Thermal Energy Corporation
- Savvy Resources Ltd - HongKong
- Aboitiz Power Corporation - Philippines
- San Jose City I Power Corp, Philippines
- Planning Commission, India
- Karaikal Port Pvt Ltd - India
- Eastern Coal Council - USA
- Metalloyd Limited - United Kingdom
- Borneo Indobara - Indonesia
- Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited - India
- IEA Clean Coal Centre - UK
- Thiess Contractors Indonesia
- Sree Jayajothi Cements Limited - India
- Bayan Resources Tbk. - Indonesia
- Romanian Commodities Exchange
- SMG Consultants - Indonesia
- Bangladesh Power Developement Board
- Simpson Spence & Young - Indonesia
- Posco Energy - South Korea
- White Energy Company Limited
- Mjunction Services Limited - India
- Ministry of Transport, Egypt
- Bahari Cakrawala Sebuku - Indonesia
- Bukit Baiduri Energy - Indonesia
- PowerSource Philippines DevCo
- Gujarat Sidhee Cement - India
- CNBM International Corporation - China
- Sindya Power Generating Company Private Ltd
- Karbindo Abesyapradhi - Indoneisa
- Economic Council, Georgia
- Orica Australia Pty. Ltd.
- Aditya Birla Group - India
- Jaiprakash Power Ventures ltd
- Indian Oil Corporation Limited
- Coastal Gujarat Power Limited - India
- Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd - Australia
- Malabar Cements Ltd - India
- Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission - India
- Directorate Of Revenue Intelligence - India
- Agrawal Coal Company - India
- TeaM Sual Corporation - Philippines
- Timah Investasi Mineral - Indoneisa
- Price Waterhouse Coopers - Russia
- Coalindo Energy - Indonesia
- Directorate General of MIneral and Coal - Indonesia
- Goldman Sachs - Singapore
- Kepco SPC Power Corporation, Philippines
- Bulk Trading Sa - Switzerland
- Coal and Oil Company - UAE
- Port Waratah Coal Services - Australia
- Singapore Mercantile Exchange
- New Zealand Coal & Carbon
- Kartika Selabumi Mining - Indonesia
- Trasteel International SA, Italy
- Attock Cement Pakistan Limited
- Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd, - India
- Edison Trading Spa - Italy
- GN Power Mariveles Coal Plant, Philippines
- CIMB Investment Bank - Malaysia
- Semirara Mining and Power Corporation, Philippines
- LBH Netherlands Bv - Netherlands
- Meenaskhi Energy Private Limited - India
|
| |
| |
|
