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.
|
|
Wednesday, 06 August 14
CAPES: BUSINESS INTEREST REMAINS SOFT; CURRENTLY NO SIGNS OF IMPROVEMENT - INTERMODAL
COALspot.com: Despite the considerable pressure witnessed in the freight market for most of the size segments, the Dry Bulk Index was able to note ...
Wednesday, 06 August 14
SHIPPING MARKET INSIGHT - EVA TZIMA
Recent reports that Indonesia’s ban on exports of metal ore concentrates was lifted for the first time in six months for two of its biggest m ...
Wednesday, 06 August 14
SGX SUCCESSFULLY LAUNCHED NEW SGX COAL PRODUCTS
COALspot.com: Singapore Exchange (‘SGX’) has announced that, the exchange has successfully launched its new Coking and Thermal Coal pro ...
Monday, 04 August 14
ANNUAL SECOND HALF SURGE IN BRAZILIAN IRON ORE EXPORTS ABOUT TO BEGIN - JEFFREY LANDSBERG
COALspot.com: Great strength in the capesize market has all along been set to occur during the second half of this year, as that is when Brazilian ...
Monday, 04 August 14
SUB-BIT FOB INDONESIA COAL SWAP INCHES UP DESPITE LOW DEMAND
COALspot.com: Indonesian coal swaps for average Q4’ 2014 increased US$ 0.15 day on day and US$ 0.13 per mt week on week. But, the swap was lo ...
|
|
|
Showing 3561 to 3565 news of total 6871 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
 |
|
|
| |
|
- Rio Tinto Coal - Australia
- VISA Power Limited - India
- Dr Ramakrishna Prasad Power Pvt Ltd - India
- Interocean Group of Companies - India
- Edison Trading Spa - Italy
- Kumho Petrochemical, South Korea
- Wood Mackenzie - Singapore
- GN Power Mariveles Coal Plant, Philippines
- Eastern Energy - Thailand
- Maheswari Brothers Coal Limited - India
- Trasteel International SA, Italy
- Marubeni Corporation - India
- Australian Commodity Traders Exchange
- Price Waterhouse Coopers - Russia
- Toyota Tsusho Corporation, Japan
- Eastern Coal Council - USA
- Energy Development Corp, Philippines
- Kideco Jaya Agung - Indonesia
- Baramulti Group, Indonesia
- Pendopo Energi Batubara - Indonesia
- PetroVietnam Power Coal Import and Supply Company
- Madhucon Powers Ltd - India
- Planning Commission, India
- Attock Cement Pakistan Limited
- Meralco Power Generation, Philippines
- Energy Link Ltd, New Zealand
- Tamil Nadu electricity Board
- Essar Steel Hazira Ltd - India
- PTC India Limited - India
- Africa Commodities Group - South Africa
- Bangladesh Power Developement Board
- Ind-Barath Power Infra Limited - India
- Ministry of Mines - Canada
- Bukit Asam (Persero) Tbk - Indonesia
- Parliament of New Zealand
- The Treasury - Australian Government
- LBH Netherlands Bv - Netherlands
- Asmin Koalindo Tuhup - Indonesia
- Kepco SPC Power Corporation, Philippines
- Carbofer General Trading SA - India
- India Bulls Power Limited - India
- PNOC Exploration Corporation - Philippines
- Uttam Galva Steels Limited - India
- SMG Consultants - Indonesia
- Commonwealth Bank - Australia
- Jindal Steel & Power Ltd - India
- Manunggal Multi Energi - Indonesia
- Straits Asia Resources Limited - Singapore
- Minerals Council of Australia
- Salva Resources Pvt Ltd - India
- Posco Energy - South Korea
- Ceylon Electricity Board - Sri Lanka
- Aboitiz Power Corporation - Philippines
- Vizag Seaport Private Limited - India
- Kaltim Prima Coal - Indonesia
- Bulk Trading Sa - Switzerland
- Independent Power Producers Association of India
- Central Java Power - Indonesia
- Ministry of Transport, Egypt
- Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited - India
- New Zealand Coal & Carbon
- Petrochimia International Co. Ltd.- Taiwan
- Kartika Selabumi Mining - Indonesia
- Central Electricity Authority - India
- Ministry of Finance - Indonesia
- Gujarat Mineral Development Corp Ltd - India
- Bharathi Cement Corporation - India
- Semirara Mining Corp, Philippines
- Lanco Infratech Ltd - India
- Wilmar Investment Holdings
- Metalloyd Limited - United Kingdom
- The State Trading Corporation of India Ltd
- Merrill Lynch Commodities Europe
- Bayan Resources Tbk. - Indonesia
- Bhoruka Overseas - Indonesia
- OPG Power Generation Pvt Ltd - India
- Orica Mining Services - Indonesia
- Latin American Coal - Colombia
- Petron Corporation, Philippines
- Bukit Baiduri Energy - Indonesia
- Chamber of Mines of South Africa
- London Commodity Brokers - England
- Binh Thuan Hamico - Vietnam
- Oldendorff Carriers - Singapore
- Mercuria Energy - Indonesia
- Siam City Cement - Thailand
- Simpson Spence & Young - Indonesia
- Mjunction Services Limited - India
- Sarangani Energy Corporation, Philippines
- Borneo Indobara - Indonesia
- Indian Oil Corporation Limited
- GAC Shipping (India) Pvt Ltd
- Chettinad Cement Corporation Ltd - India
- Romanian Commodities Exchange
- Xindia Steels Limited - India
- European Bulk Services B.V. - Netherlands
- Pipit Mutiara Jaya. PT, Indonesia
- Australian Coal Association
- Singapore Mercantile Exchange
- Riau Bara Harum - Indonesia
- Krishnapatnam Port Company Ltd. - India
- Parry Sugars Refinery, India
- Coal and Oil Company - UAE
- Electricity Authority, New Zealand
- Savvy Resources Ltd - HongKong
- Miang Besar Coal Terminal - Indonesia
- Standard Chartered Bank - UAE
- Kapuas Tunggal Persada - Indonesia
- SN Aboitiz Power Inc, Philippines
- Intertek Mineral Services - Indonesia
- Alfred C Toepfer International GmbH - Germany
- Asia Pacific Energy Resources Ventures Inc, Philippines
- IHS Mccloskey Coal Group - USA
- Antam Resourcindo - Indonesia
- Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand
- Mercator Lines Limited - India
- Orica Australia Pty. Ltd.
- Banpu Public Company Limited - Thailand
- Bukit Makmur.PT - Indonesia
- Holcim Trading Pte Ltd - Singapore
- Heidelberg Cement - Germany
- Formosa Plastics Group - Taiwan
- Power Finance Corporation Ltd., India
- IEA Clean Coal Centre - UK
- Anglo American - United Kingdom
- ICICI Bank Limited - India
- Indika Energy - Indonesia
- Kalimantan Lumbung Energi - Indonesia
- Goldman Sachs - Singapore
- Georgia Ports Authority, United States
- Cigading International Bulk Terminal - Indonesia
- Coalindo Energy - Indonesia
- Aditya Birla Group - India
- Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd, - India
- AsiaOL BioFuels Corp., Philippines
- Jaiprakash Power Ventures ltd
- Sree Jayajothi Cements Limited - India
- Thai Mozambique Logistica
- South Luzon Thermal Energy Corporation
- PowerSource Philippines DevCo
- White Energy Company Limited
- Bhatia International Limited - India
- Indonesian Coal Mining Association
- SMC Global Power, Philippines
- Jorong Barutama Greston.PT - Indonesia
- Tata Chemicals Ltd - India
- Directorate General of MIneral and Coal - Indonesia
- Karaikal Port Pvt Ltd - India
- CIMB Investment Bank - Malaysia
- Mintek Dendrill Indonesia
- Iligan Light & Power Inc, Philippines
- Truba Alam Manunggal Engineering.Tbk - Indonesia
- MS Steel International - UAE
- Samtan Co., Ltd - South Korea
- Bhushan Steel Limited - India
- Sindya Power Generating Company Private Ltd
- Meenaskhi Energy Private Limited - India
- Medco Energi Mining Internasional
- Kobexindo Tractors - Indoneisa
- Port Waratah Coal Services - Australia
- Sakthi Sugars Limited - India
- Globalindo Alam Lestari - Indonesia
- Ambuja Cements Ltd - India
- Sinarmas Energy and Mining - Indonesia
- Renaissance Capital - South Africa
- Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd - Australia
- Filglen & Citicon Mining (HK) Ltd - Hong Kong
- McConnell Dowell - Australia
- Vijayanagar Sugar Pvt Ltd - India
- Malabar Cements Ltd - India
- Barasentosa Lestari - Indonesia
- Global Business Power Corporation, Philippines
- Global Green Power PLC Corporation, Philippines
- San Jose City I Power Corp, Philippines
- Therma Luzon, Inc, Philippines
- Grasim Industreis Ltd - India
- Siam City Cement PLC, Thailand
- Sojitz Corporation - Japan
- Agrawal Coal Company - India
- Kohat Cement Company Ltd. - Pakistan
- CNBM International Corporation - China
- Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission - India
- Karbindo Abesyapradhi - Indoneisa
- GMR Energy Limited - India
- TeaM Sual Corporation - Philippines
- Billiton Holdings Pty Ltd - Australia
- Directorate Of Revenue Intelligence - India
- Semirara Mining and Power Corporation, Philippines
- Indian Energy Exchange, India
- Dalmia Cement Bharat India
- TNB Fuel Sdn Bhd - Malaysia
- Vedanta Resources Plc - India
- Gujarat Sidhee Cement - India
- Sical Logistics Limited - India
- Offshore Bulk Terminal Pte Ltd, Singapore
- The University of Queensland
- Star Paper Mills Limited - India
- Indo Tambangraya Megah - Indonesia
- Economic Council, Georgia
- Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission - India
- Bahari Cakrawala Sebuku - Indonesia
- Altura Mining Limited, Indonesia
- Videocon Industries ltd - India
- GVK Power & Infra Limited - India
- Dong Bac Coal Mineral Investment Coporation - Vietnam
- Timah Investasi Mineral - Indoneisa
- Coastal Gujarat Power Limited - India
- Thiess Contractors Indonesia
- Makarim & Taira - Indonesia
- Global Coal Blending Company Limited - Australia
- International Coal Ventures Pvt Ltd - India
- Indogreen Group - Indonesia
- ASAPP Information Group - India
- Larsen & Toubro Limited - India
- Bank of Tokyo Mitsubishi UFJ Ltd
- Cement Manufacturers Association - India
- Deloitte Consulting - India
|
| |
| |
|
