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, 18 August 14
SUB-BIT FOB INDONESIA COAL SWAP CLOSED AT $58.60 FOR SEPTEMBER 2015; UP $4 FROM SEPTEMBER 2014 CLOSING
COALspot.com: Indonesian coal swaps for average September 2014 decreased US$ 0.15 (-0.27%) day on day and US$ 0.75 (-1.36%) per mt week on week. Th ...
Monday, 18 August 14
CFR SOUTH CHINA COAL SWAP PERFORMED WELL THIS PAST WEEK
COALspot.com: API 8 CFR South China Coal swap for delivery in September 2014 increased US$ 0.45 (+0.66%) day on day and US$ 0.30 (+0.44%)&nbs ...
Saturday, 16 August 14
HIGH DEMAND OF IRON ORE SHIPMENTS PUSHED CAPE INDEX UPWARDS
COALspot.com: This week's freight market was buoyant with Cape and panamax index seeing a big jump pushing the BDI above 1,000 points week on c ...
Friday, 15 August 14
5TH ANNUAL POWER AND ELECTRICITY INDONESIA
5TH ANNUAL POWER AND ELECTRICITY INDONESIA
13-16 October 2014
Grand Hyatt Jakarta, Indonesia
Web Site
The country’s definitive ...
Thursday, 14 August 14
U.S. STEAM COAL IMPORTS REMAIN DOWN SHARPLY FROM HISTORIC HIGH IN 2007, SAYS EIA
COALspot.com: U.S. steam coal imports at power plants have fallen significantly from their peak level of more than 30 million tons in 2007 to less ...
|
|
|
Showing 3541 to 3545 news of total 6871 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
 |
|
|
| |
|
- Riau Bara Harum - Indonesia
- Wood Mackenzie - Singapore
- Coalindo Energy - Indonesia
- Energy Development Corp, Philippines
- Offshore Bulk Terminal Pte Ltd, Singapore
- Kohat Cement Company Ltd. - Pakistan
- Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand
- Minerals Council of Australia
- Global Business Power Corporation, Philippines
- Sakthi Sugars Limited - India
- Eastern Coal Council - USA
- Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd, - India
- Savvy Resources Ltd - HongKong
- LBH Netherlands Bv - Netherlands
- Thai Mozambique Logistica
- Grasim Industreis Ltd - India
- Goldman Sachs - Singapore
- Directorate Of Revenue Intelligence - India
- Indogreen Group - Indonesia
- Krishnapatnam Port Company Ltd. - India
- Gujarat Mineral Development Corp Ltd - India
- Attock Cement Pakistan Limited
- Mercator Lines Limited - India
- Romanian Commodities Exchange
- Georgia Ports Authority, United States
- GMR Energy Limited - India
- Petrochimia International Co. Ltd.- Taiwan
- Australian Commodity Traders Exchange
- Planning Commission, India
- Globalindo Alam Lestari - Indonesia
- Xindia Steels Limited - India
- Orica Mining Services - Indonesia
- Sindya Power Generating Company Private Ltd
- ASAPP Information Group - India
- SN Aboitiz Power Inc, Philippines
- Sarangani Energy Corporation, Philippines
- Uttam Galva Steels Limited - India
- Ministry of Mines - Canada
- Petron Corporation, Philippines
- Kaltim Prima Coal - Indonesia
- Standard Chartered Bank - UAE
- Borneo Indobara - Indonesia
- GN Power Mariveles Coal Plant, Philippines
- OPG Power Generation Pvt Ltd - India
- Chamber of Mines of South Africa
- Iligan Light & Power Inc, Philippines
- Port Waratah Coal Services - Australia
- Coastal Gujarat Power Limited - India
- European Bulk Services B.V. - Netherlands
- Australian Coal Association
- Tata Chemicals Ltd - India
- Pendopo Energi Batubara - Indonesia
- Sree Jayajothi Cements Limited - India
- Ind-Barath Power Infra Limited - India
- Malabar Cements Ltd - India
- Kumho Petrochemical, South Korea
- Karbindo Abesyapradhi - Indoneisa
- Bulk Trading Sa - Switzerland
- Billiton Holdings Pty Ltd - Australia
- ICICI Bank Limited - India
- Bayan Resources Tbk. - Indonesia
- Siam City Cement PLC, Thailand
- Jindal Steel & Power Ltd - India
- Ceylon Electricity Board - Sri Lanka
- Ministry of Transport, Egypt
- Global Coal Blending Company Limited - Australia
- Gujarat Sidhee Cement - India
- Star Paper Mills Limited - India
- Ministry of Finance - Indonesia
- Global Green Power PLC Corporation, Philippines
- Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission - India
- Parry Sugars Refinery, India
- Bhushan Steel Limited - India
- New Zealand Coal & Carbon
- Dong Bac Coal Mineral Investment Coporation - Vietnam
- Mintek Dendrill Indonesia
- Manunggal Multi Energi - Indonesia
- Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited - India
- Interocean Group of Companies - India
- Filglen & Citicon Mining (HK) Ltd - Hong Kong
- Simpson Spence & Young - Indonesia
- Agrawal Coal Company - India
- Deloitte Consulting - India
- Bank of Tokyo Mitsubishi UFJ Ltd
- TNB Fuel Sdn Bhd - Malaysia
- The State Trading Corporation of India Ltd
- Meenaskhi Energy Private Limited - India
- Thiess Contractors Indonesia
- Bharathi Cement Corporation - India
- Medco Energi Mining Internasional
- PTC India Limited - India
- Sical Logistics Limited - India
- Bahari Cakrawala Sebuku - Indonesia
- Jorong Barutama Greston.PT - Indonesia
- Ambuja Cements Ltd - India
- Indika Energy - Indonesia
- Electricity Authority, New Zealand
- Antam Resourcindo - Indonesia
- Bukit Makmur.PT - Indonesia
- Rio Tinto Coal - Australia
- IHS Mccloskey Coal Group - USA
- Posco Energy - South Korea
- Miang Besar Coal Terminal - Indonesia
- Banpu Public Company Limited - Thailand
- Kalimantan Lumbung Energi - Indonesia
- Oldendorff Carriers - Singapore
- McConnell Dowell - Australia
- TeaM Sual Corporation - Philippines
- Trasteel International SA, Italy
- Mercuria Energy - Indonesia
- Aditya Birla Group - India
- Madhucon Powers Ltd - India
- Toyota Tsusho Corporation, Japan
- Indian Energy Exchange, India
- International Coal Ventures Pvt Ltd - India
- Siam City Cement - Thailand
- Marubeni Corporation - India
- GAC Shipping (India) Pvt Ltd
- The Treasury - Australian Government
- Altura Mining Limited, Indonesia
- VISA Power Limited - India
- Bukit Baiduri Energy - Indonesia
- Binh Thuan Hamico - Vietnam
- SMG Consultants - Indonesia
- Indo Tambangraya Megah - Indonesia
- CNBM International Corporation - China
- AsiaOL BioFuels Corp., Philippines
- Singapore Mercantile Exchange
- CIMB Investment Bank - Malaysia
- Intertek Mineral Services - Indonesia
- Central Java Power - Indonesia
- Sojitz Corporation - Japan
- Renaissance Capital - South Africa
- Commonwealth Bank - Australia
- Wilmar Investment Holdings
- Indian Oil Corporation Limited
- South Luzon Thermal Energy Corporation
- Meralco Power Generation, Philippines
- Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd - Australia
- GVK Power & Infra Limited - India
- Maheswari Brothers Coal Limited - India
- Semirara Mining Corp, Philippines
- Price Waterhouse Coopers - Russia
- Videocon Industries ltd - India
- Metalloyd Limited - United Kingdom
- Samtan Co., Ltd - South Korea
- Chettinad Cement Corporation Ltd - India
- Kobexindo Tractors - Indoneisa
- Salva Resources Pvt Ltd - India
- Semirara Mining and Power Corporation, Philippines
- Vizag Seaport Private Limited - India
- Holcim Trading Pte Ltd - Singapore
- Heidelberg Cement - Germany
- IEA Clean Coal Centre - UK
- Anglo American - United Kingdom
- Dalmia Cement Bharat India
- Aboitiz Power Corporation - Philippines
- Timah Investasi Mineral - Indoneisa
- Cigading International Bulk Terminal - Indonesia
- Coal and Oil Company - UAE
- Kartika Selabumi Mining - Indonesia
- Kapuas Tunggal Persada - Indonesia
- Power Finance Corporation Ltd., India
- Indonesian Coal Mining Association
- Jaiprakash Power Ventures ltd
- Orica Australia Pty. Ltd.
- Tamil Nadu electricity Board
- Africa Commodities Group - South Africa
- Bukit Asam (Persero) Tbk - Indonesia
- PowerSource Philippines DevCo
- London Commodity Brokers - England
- Edison Trading Spa - Italy
- Pipit Mutiara Jaya. PT, Indonesia
- The University of Queensland
- Alfred C Toepfer International GmbH - Germany
- Asmin Koalindo Tuhup - Indonesia
- Eastern Energy - Thailand
- Bangladesh Power Developement Board
- Lanco Infratech Ltd - India
- Parliament of New Zealand
- Carbofer General Trading SA - India
- Bhatia International Limited - India
- Asia Pacific Energy Resources Ventures Inc, Philippines
- PNOC Exploration Corporation - Philippines
- Straits Asia Resources Limited - Singapore
- Cement Manufacturers Association - India
- Vedanta Resources Plc - India
- Karaikal Port Pvt Ltd - India
- Baramulti Group, Indonesia
- Therma Luzon, Inc, Philippines
- Sinarmas Energy and Mining - Indonesia
- Larsen & Toubro Limited - India
- Economic Council, Georgia
- Barasentosa Lestari - Indonesia
- Mjunction Services Limited - India
- Essar Steel Hazira Ltd - India
- Independent Power Producers Association of India
- Central Electricity Authority - India
- Kepco SPC Power Corporation, Philippines
- Formosa Plastics Group - Taiwan
- Bhoruka Overseas - Indonesia
- PetroVietnam Power Coal Import and Supply Company
- SMC Global Power, Philippines
- Directorate General of MIneral and Coal - Indonesia
- Merrill Lynch Commodities Europe
- Dr Ramakrishna Prasad Power Pvt Ltd - India
- Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission - India
- Kideco Jaya Agung - Indonesia
- Vijayanagar Sugar Pvt Ltd - India
- Energy Link Ltd, New Zealand
- Latin American Coal - Colombia
- San Jose City I Power Corp, Philippines
- MS Steel International - UAE
- White Energy Company Limited
- Makarim & Taira - Indonesia
- India Bulls Power Limited - India
- Truba Alam Manunggal Engineering.Tbk - Indonesia
|
| |
| |
|
