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, 04 August 14
Q1' 15 API 8 CFR SOUTH CHINA COAL SWAP CLOSED AT US$ 69.37 ON 1 AUGUST 2014; A $ 1.10 HIGHER COMPARED TO Q4' 2014 CLOSING
COALspot.com: Coal swap prices are showing a positive move upward this past week. API 8 CFR South China Coal swap for Q4, Q1 and Q2 2015 show ...
Sunday, 03 August 14
LACK OF COAL SHIPMENTS FROM FAR EAST/SE ASIA, THE PRESSURE ON CHARTER RATES CONTINUED THIS WEEK
COALspot.com: This week, the freight rates were almost flat as charter rates were also almost steady from last week.
The BDI was up by 2.59 pc ...
Friday, 01 August 14
UNCERTAINTY IN ASIAN COAL MARKETS WHERE INDEX-LINKED PRICING DOMINATES - SGX
COALspot.com: In the past 3 years, seaborne thermal coal markets have been in a state of constant oversupply.
Reuters expects this oversupply ...
Friday, 01 August 14
U.S PRODUCED 19.4 MMST OF COAL IN A WEEK, SAYS EIA
COALspot.com – United States the world's second largest coal producer, produced approximately 19.40 million short tons (mmst) of coal in ...
Thursday, 31 July 14
CAPESIZE: CARGO VOLUMES, COAL IN PARTICULAR, PRESENTLY NOT SUFFICIENT TO EMPLOY A GROWING FLEET - FERNLEYS
Handy
Both the Atlantic and Pacific has improved in the supramax segment over the last week, said Fernleys in Its latest weekly report . There we ...
|
|
|
Showing 3566 to 3570 news of total 6871 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
 |
|
|
| |
|
- Savvy Resources Ltd - HongKong
- CIMB Investment Bank - Malaysia
- PowerSource Philippines DevCo
- Metalloyd Limited - United Kingdom
- Intertek Mineral Services - Indonesia
- San Jose City I Power Corp, Philippines
- India Bulls Power Limited - India
- Formosa Plastics Group - Taiwan
- Larsen & Toubro Limited - India
- Makarim & Taira - Indonesia
- Medco Energi Mining Internasional
- Offshore Bulk Terminal Pte Ltd, Singapore
- Videocon Industries ltd - India
- Rio Tinto Coal - Australia
- Ambuja Cements Ltd - India
- Directorate Of Revenue Intelligence - India
- Maheswari Brothers Coal Limited - India
- Trasteel International SA, Italy
- Eastern Coal Council - USA
- Heidelberg Cement - Germany
- Central Java Power - Indonesia
- Simpson Spence & Young - Indonesia
- Grasim Industreis Ltd - India
- Posco Energy - South Korea
- Cement Manufacturers Association - India
- Filglen & Citicon Mining (HK) Ltd - Hong Kong
- Romanian Commodities Exchange
- Standard Chartered Bank - UAE
- Aditya Birla Group - India
- Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited - India
- LBH Netherlands Bv - Netherlands
- Mercator Lines Limited - India
- Parliament of New Zealand
- Commonwealth Bank - Australia
- GN Power Mariveles Coal Plant, Philippines
- GMR Energy Limited - India
- Australian Coal Association
- Barasentosa Lestari - Indonesia
- Bayan Resources Tbk. - Indonesia
- Orica Australia Pty. Ltd.
- Star Paper Mills Limited - India
- Oldendorff Carriers - Singapore
- Australian Commodity Traders Exchange
- Indika Energy - Indonesia
- Sarangani Energy Corporation, Philippines
- Pendopo Energi Batubara - Indonesia
- Gujarat Mineral Development Corp Ltd - India
- McConnell Dowell - Australia
- Bahari Cakrawala Sebuku - Indonesia
- Thai Mozambique Logistica
- Jorong Barutama Greston.PT - Indonesia
- Asmin Koalindo Tuhup - Indonesia
- Vedanta Resources Plc - India
- Iligan Light & Power Inc, Philippines
- Truba Alam Manunggal Engineering.Tbk - Indonesia
- Eastern Energy - Thailand
- Bhushan Steel Limited - India
- Kapuas Tunggal Persada - Indonesia
- Latin American Coal - Colombia
- Bangladesh Power Developement Board
- Sree Jayajothi Cements Limited - India
- Anglo American - United Kingdom
- Dr Ramakrishna Prasad Power Pvt Ltd - India
- Petrochimia International Co. Ltd.- Taiwan
- Xindia Steels Limited - India
- Bukit Asam (Persero) Tbk - Indonesia
- TeaM Sual Corporation - Philippines
- Salva Resources Pvt Ltd - India
- Bharathi Cement Corporation - India
- The State Trading Corporation of India Ltd
- Carbofer General Trading SA - India
- Orica Mining Services - Indonesia
- Indian Energy Exchange, India
- Therma Luzon, Inc, Philippines
- Riau Bara Harum - Indonesia
- Kideco Jaya Agung - Indonesia
- Chamber of Mines of South Africa
- Price Waterhouse Coopers - Russia
- Wilmar Investment Holdings
- Indogreen Group - Indonesia
- Bulk Trading Sa - Switzerland
- Uttam Galva Steels Limited - India
- SN Aboitiz Power Inc, Philippines
- Essar Steel Hazira Ltd - India
- Vizag Seaport Private Limited - India
- Meralco Power Generation, Philippines
- PTC India Limited - India
- Central Electricity Authority - India
- Tamil Nadu electricity Board
- White Energy Company Limited
- TNB Fuel Sdn Bhd - Malaysia
- Goldman Sachs - Singapore
- Ministry of Finance - Indonesia
- SMC Global Power, Philippines
- Madhucon Powers Ltd - India
- Sojitz Corporation - Japan
- Vijayanagar Sugar Pvt Ltd - India
- Dong Bac Coal Mineral Investment Coporation - Vietnam
- Planning Commission, India
- Wood Mackenzie - Singapore
- Indo Tambangraya Megah - Indonesia
- Bhatia International Limited - India
- Karaikal Port Pvt Ltd - India
- Timah Investasi Mineral - Indoneisa
- Borneo Indobara - Indonesia
- MS Steel International - UAE
- Interocean Group of Companies - India
- VISA Power Limited - India
- Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission - India
- International Coal Ventures Pvt Ltd - India
- South Luzon Thermal Energy Corporation
- Dalmia Cement Bharat India
- Coalindo Energy - Indonesia
- Kepco SPC Power Corporation, Philippines
- OPG Power Generation Pvt Ltd - India
- PNOC Exploration Corporation - Philippines
- Bhoruka Overseas - Indonesia
- Straits Asia Resources Limited - Singapore
- Georgia Ports Authority, United States
- Toyota Tsusho Corporation, Japan
- Banpu Public Company Limited - Thailand
- Chettinad Cement Corporation Ltd - India
- Bukit Makmur.PT - Indonesia
- Miang Besar Coal Terminal - Indonesia
- Attock Cement Pakistan Limited
- Samtan Co., Ltd - South Korea
- Antam Resourcindo - Indonesia
- New Zealand Coal & Carbon
- Power Finance Corporation Ltd., India
- Meenaskhi Energy Private Limited - India
- Kumho Petrochemical, South Korea
- Manunggal Multi Energi - Indonesia
- Global Green Power PLC Corporation, Philippines
- Sical Logistics Limited - India
- Directorate General of MIneral and Coal - Indonesia
- Ceylon Electricity Board - Sri Lanka
- Kaltim Prima Coal - Indonesia
- Jaiprakash Power Ventures ltd
- GAC Shipping (India) Pvt Ltd
- Baramulti Group, Indonesia
- Petron Corporation, Philippines
- Economic Council, Georgia
- Mercuria Energy - Indonesia
- Ministry of Mines - Canada
- Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd - Australia
- Aboitiz Power Corporation - Philippines
- Karbindo Abesyapradhi - Indoneisa
- Thiess Contractors Indonesia
- Agrawal Coal Company - India
- Electricity Authority, New Zealand
- Marubeni Corporation - India
- Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd, - India
- Pipit Mutiara Jaya. PT, Indonesia
- Jindal Steel & Power Ltd - India
- Kobexindo Tractors - Indoneisa
- The Treasury - Australian Government
- Asia Pacific Energy Resources Ventures Inc, Philippines
- Coal and Oil Company - UAE
- Ministry of Transport, Egypt
- Semirara Mining and Power Corporation, Philippines
- Binh Thuan Hamico - Vietnam
- Parry Sugars Refinery, India
- Kohat Cement Company Ltd. - Pakistan
- SMG Consultants - Indonesia
- Singapore Mercantile Exchange
- Altura Mining Limited, Indonesia
- Deloitte Consulting - India
- Gujarat Sidhee Cement - India
- Port Waratah Coal Services - Australia
- Sindya Power Generating Company Private Ltd
- Africa Commodities Group - South Africa
- Globalindo Alam Lestari - Indonesia
- Independent Power Producers Association of India
- ICICI Bank Limited - India
- ASAPP Information Group - India
- Alfred C Toepfer International GmbH - Germany
- Tata Chemicals Ltd - India
- Holcim Trading Pte Ltd - Singapore
- Coastal Gujarat Power Limited - India
- CNBM International Corporation - China
- Minerals Council of Australia
- Bank of Tokyo Mitsubishi UFJ Ltd
- Bukit Baiduri Energy - Indonesia
- European Bulk Services B.V. - Netherlands
- Billiton Holdings Pty Ltd - Australia
- Semirara Mining Corp, Philippines
- PetroVietnam Power Coal Import and Supply Company
- Renaissance Capital - South Africa
- Indonesian Coal Mining Association
- Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission - India
- AsiaOL BioFuels Corp., Philippines
- Energy Development Corp, Philippines
- Mintek Dendrill Indonesia
- Malabar Cements Ltd - India
- IEA Clean Coal Centre - UK
- GVK Power & Infra Limited - India
- Merrill Lynch Commodities Europe
- Global Coal Blending Company Limited - Australia
- The University of Queensland
- Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand
- Sakthi Sugars Limited - India
- Energy Link Ltd, New Zealand
- Cigading International Bulk Terminal - Indonesia
- Global Business Power Corporation, Philippines
- Sinarmas Energy and Mining - Indonesia
- Kartika Selabumi Mining - Indonesia
- Kalimantan Lumbung Energi - Indonesia
- Edison Trading Spa - Italy
- London Commodity Brokers - England
- Siam City Cement PLC, Thailand
- Krishnapatnam Port Company Ltd. - India
- IHS Mccloskey Coal Group - USA
- Indian Oil Corporation Limited
- Siam City Cement - Thailand
- Mjunction Services Limited - India
- Ind-Barath Power Infra Limited - India
- Lanco Infratech Ltd - India
|
| |
| |
|
