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.
|
|
Monday, 25 August 14
API 8 CFR SOUTH CHINA COAL SWAP GAINED DAY OVER DAY AND MONTH OVER MONTH
COALspot.com: API 8 CFR South China Coal swap for delivery in September 2014 increased US$ 0.30 (+0.44%) day on day and decreased US$ 0.20 (- ...
Sunday, 24 August 14
SEA FREIGHT MARKETS STARTING TO LOOK POSITIVE; CAPES DRIVE FREIGHTS HIGHER
COALspot.com: The freight market has strengthen further this week with BDI up 7.19 pct week on week. The BDI was closed at 1,088 points while the B ...
Friday, 22 August 14
INDIAN IRON ORE ROYALTY RISE NOT LIKELY TO HURT STEELMAKERS' MARGINS - FITCH
Fitch Ratings does not expect an increase in India's iron ore royalty rates to have a major impact on the profitability of steel producers in t ...
Friday, 22 August 14
ARBITRATION CLAUSE IN LOU HELD TO REPLACE CHARTERPARTY ARBITRATION CLAUSE
KNOWLEDGE TO ELEVATE
The Claimants had claims for cargo damage against the vessel Owners arising under four bills of lading. The vessel was th ...
Friday, 22 August 14
ICAP ENERGY LAUNCHES GLOBAL COKING COAL DERIVATIVES TRADING
First contract completed and cleared on CME
COALspot.com: ICAP Energy, the energy business of ICAP plc, announces today that it has successful ...
|
|
|
Showing 3531 to 3535 news of total 6871 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
 |
|
|
| |
|
- Price Waterhouse Coopers - Russia
- The University of Queensland
- Riau Bara Harum - Indonesia
- The State Trading Corporation of India Ltd
- Jaiprakash Power Ventures ltd
- Wilmar Investment Holdings
- ASAPP Information Group - India
- Aboitiz Power Corporation - Philippines
- Central Electricity Authority - India
- Star Paper Mills Limited - India
- Barasentosa Lestari - Indonesia
- Bukit Asam (Persero) Tbk - Indonesia
- Siam City Cement PLC, Thailand
- Kideco Jaya Agung - Indonesia
- Eastern Energy - Thailand
- Bharathi Cement Corporation - India
- Kepco SPC Power Corporation, Philippines
- Meralco Power Generation, Philippines
- Ind-Barath Power Infra Limited - India
- PetroVietnam Power Coal Import and Supply Company
- Pendopo Energi Batubara - Indonesia
- Coastal Gujarat Power Limited - India
- Formosa Plastics Group - Taiwan
- Singapore Mercantile Exchange
- GMR Energy Limited - India
- Bhoruka Overseas - Indonesia
- Directorate Of Revenue Intelligence - India
- Bank of Tokyo Mitsubishi UFJ Ltd
- Energy Link Ltd, New Zealand
- Indonesian Coal Mining Association
- Maheswari Brothers Coal Limited - India
- Energy Development Corp, Philippines
- Planning Commission, India
- Bangladesh Power Developement Board
- Eastern Coal Council - USA
- Rio Tinto Coal - Australia
- Ministry of Transport, Egypt
- Sakthi Sugars Limited - India
- Asia Pacific Energy Resources Ventures Inc, Philippines
- Lanco Infratech Ltd - India
- European Bulk Services B.V. - Netherlands
- Oldendorff Carriers - Singapore
- Samtan Co., Ltd - South Korea
- Uttam Galva Steels Limited - India
- Dr Ramakrishna Prasad Power Pvt Ltd - India
- Mintek Dendrill Indonesia
- Directorate General of MIneral and Coal - Indonesia
- Xindia Steels Limited - India
- Toyota Tsusho Corporation, Japan
- The Treasury - Australian Government
- Bhatia International Limited - India
- Salva Resources Pvt Ltd - India
- Dalmia Cement Bharat India
- Medco Energi Mining Internasional
- Deloitte Consulting - India
- TNB Fuel Sdn Bhd - Malaysia
- Malabar Cements Ltd - India
- Kartika Selabumi Mining - Indonesia
- Indo Tambangraya Megah - Indonesia
- SMG Consultants - Indonesia
- Posco Energy - South Korea
- OPG Power Generation Pvt Ltd - India
- Siam City Cement - Thailand
- Economic Council, Georgia
- IEA Clean Coal Centre - UK
- Commonwealth Bank - Australia
- Tata Chemicals Ltd - India
- Pipit Mutiara Jaya. PT, Indonesia
- Manunggal Multi Energi - Indonesia
- Semirara Mining Corp, Philippines
- Independent Power Producers Association of India
- Filglen & Citicon Mining (HK) Ltd - Hong Kong
- Sindya Power Generating Company Private Ltd
- Tamil Nadu electricity Board
- Cement Manufacturers Association - India
- Wood Mackenzie - Singapore
- Mjunction Services Limited - India
- Holcim Trading Pte Ltd - Singapore
- Orica Mining Services - Indonesia
- Asmin Koalindo Tuhup - Indonesia
- Georgia Ports Authority, United States
- Chamber of Mines of South Africa
- Trasteel International SA, Italy
- Therma Luzon, Inc, Philippines
- Bahari Cakrawala Sebuku - Indonesia
- Jorong Barutama Greston.PT - Indonesia
- Bulk Trading Sa - Switzerland
- PNOC Exploration Corporation - Philippines
- White Energy Company Limited
- Videocon Industries ltd - India
- Savvy Resources Ltd - HongKong
- Metalloyd Limited - United Kingdom
- Vedanta Resources Plc - India
- Offshore Bulk Terminal Pte Ltd, Singapore
- Banpu Public Company Limited - Thailand
- Global Green Power PLC Corporation, Philippines
- Gujarat Sidhee Cement - India
- Baramulti Group, Indonesia
- CNBM International Corporation - China
- PTC India Limited - India
- Karaikal Port Pvt Ltd - India
- Larsen & Toubro Limited - India
- Interocean Group of Companies - India
- India Bulls Power Limited - India
- Miang Besar Coal Terminal - Indonesia
- Petron Corporation, Philippines
- Thai Mozambique Logistica
- Carbofer General Trading SA - India
- TeaM Sual Corporation - Philippines
- Grasim Industreis Ltd - India
- Altura Mining Limited, Indonesia
- Bukit Baiduri Energy - Indonesia
- Petrochimia International Co. Ltd.- Taiwan
- London Commodity Brokers - England
- GN Power Mariveles Coal Plant, Philippines
- Coal and Oil Company - UAE
- Karbindo Abesyapradhi - Indoneisa
- Heidelberg Cement - Germany
- Kumho Petrochemical, South Korea
- Mercator Lines Limited - India
- MS Steel International - UAE
- Vijayanagar Sugar Pvt Ltd - India
- Latin American Coal - Colombia
- Jindal Steel & Power Ltd - India
- Thiess Contractors Indonesia
- Ambuja Cements Ltd - India
- Goldman Sachs - Singapore
- Essar Steel Hazira Ltd - India
- Attock Cement Pakistan Limited
- International Coal Ventures Pvt Ltd - India
- Truba Alam Manunggal Engineering.Tbk - Indonesia
- San Jose City I Power Corp, Philippines
- Sree Jayajothi Cements Limited - India
- Straits Asia Resources Limited - Singapore
- AsiaOL BioFuels Corp., Philippines
- Krishnapatnam Port Company Ltd. - India
- Sarangani Energy Corporation, Philippines
- Borneo Indobara - Indonesia
- Intertek Mineral Services - Indonesia
- ICICI Bank Limited - India
- LBH Netherlands Bv - Netherlands
- Billiton Holdings Pty Ltd - Australia
- New Zealand Coal & Carbon
- Power Finance Corporation Ltd., India
- Kohat Cement Company Ltd. - Pakistan
- Indika Energy - Indonesia
- Meenaskhi Energy Private Limited - India
- Alfred C Toepfer International GmbH - Germany
- CIMB Investment Bank - Malaysia
- McConnell Dowell - Australia
- Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission - India
- Kaltim Prima Coal - Indonesia
- Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand
- Antam Resourcindo - Indonesia
- Electricity Authority, New Zealand
- Marubeni Corporation - India
- Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission - India
- Ministry of Finance - Indonesia
- Bukit Makmur.PT - Indonesia
- Edison Trading Spa - Italy
- Indian Oil Corporation Limited
- Parliament of New Zealand
- Sojitz Corporation - Japan
- Binh Thuan Hamico - Vietnam
- Sical Logistics Limited - India
- SN Aboitiz Power Inc, Philippines
- Anglo American - United Kingdom
- Gujarat Mineral Development Corp Ltd - India
- Timah Investasi Mineral - Indoneisa
- Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd, - India
- Ministry of Mines - Canada
- Sinarmas Energy and Mining - Indonesia
- VISA Power Limited - India
- Australian Commodity Traders Exchange
- Merrill Lynch Commodities Europe
- Indogreen Group - Indonesia
- Agrawal Coal Company - India
- Aditya Birla Group - India
- Bhushan Steel Limited - India
- Port Waratah Coal Services - Australia
- SMC Global Power, Philippines
- Cigading International Bulk Terminal - Indonesia
- Standard Chartered Bank - UAE
- Central Java Power - Indonesia
- Dong Bac Coal Mineral Investment Coporation - Vietnam
- Chettinad Cement Corporation Ltd - India
- Africa Commodities Group - South Africa
- Vizag Seaport Private Limited - India
- Ceylon Electricity Board - Sri Lanka
- South Luzon Thermal Energy Corporation
- Kalimantan Lumbung Energi - Indonesia
- Global Business Power Corporation, Philippines
- Mercuria Energy - Indonesia
- Madhucon Powers Ltd - India
- Bayan Resources Tbk. - Indonesia
- Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd - Australia
- Global Coal Blending Company Limited - Australia
- Orica Australia Pty. Ltd.
- Iligan Light & Power Inc, Philippines
- Kapuas Tunggal Persada - Indonesia
- Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited - India
- Kobexindo Tractors - Indoneisa
- Parry Sugars Refinery, India
- Minerals Council of Australia
- Simpson Spence & Young - Indonesia
- Coalindo Energy - Indonesia
- GAC Shipping (India) Pvt Ltd
- Romanian Commodities Exchange
- Globalindo Alam Lestari - Indonesia
- Makarim & Taira - Indonesia
- PowerSource Philippines DevCo
- Renaissance Capital - South Africa
- IHS Mccloskey Coal Group - USA
- Semirara Mining and Power Corporation, Philippines
- Australian Coal Association
- Indian Energy Exchange, India
- GVK Power & Infra Limited - India
|
| |
| |
|
