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.
|
|
Thursday, 31 July 14
RIO TINTO SELLS MOZAMBIQUE COAL ASSETS FOR US$ 50 MILLION TO INDIA'S ICVL
COALspot.com: Rio Tinto has agreed to sell its Mozambique coal assets for just US$ 50 million to International coal ventures Private limited of Ind ...
Wednesday, 30 July 14
CAPES SEEMED TO BE STRANDED AT THE SAME LEVELS; PANAMAXES MANAGED TO SLIGHTLY REVIVE - INTERMODAL
COALspot.com: The Dry Bulk market took a breath this past week, as both Panamaxes and Supras started to see a small influx of activity, which was j ...
Tuesday, 29 July 14
TOTAL SELLS ITS SOUTH AFRICAN COAL MINING ASSETS TO EXXARO
Total has signed an agreement with Exxaro Resources Ltd for the sale of its 100% stake in Total Coal South Africa (TCSA), its coal-producing affili ...
Tuesday, 29 July 14
SHIP OWNERS' DEMAND OF NEW VESSELS DENTED AS A RESULT OF LOWER FREIGHT RATES - NIKOS ROUSSANOGLOU, HELLENIC SHIPPING NEWS
The sharp downward direction of dry bulk freight rates has had a negative impact on investors’ secondhand buying appetite that wait to see th ...
Monday, 28 July 14
Q3' 14, SUB-BIT FOB INDONESIA COAL SWAP GAINED $ 0.08 DAY ON DAY AND $ 0.68 WEEK ON WEEK
COALspot.com: Indonesian coal swaps for average Q3’ 2014 increased by just US$ 0.08 day on day and US$ 0.68 week on week. The swap was lost U ...
|
|
|
Showing 3571 to 3575 news of total 6871 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
 |
|
|
| |
|
- Timah Investasi Mineral - Indoneisa
- OPG Power Generation Pvt Ltd - India
- Krishnapatnam Port Company Ltd. - India
- MS Steel International - UAE
- GN Power Mariveles Coal Plant, Philippines
- GMR Energy Limited - India
- London Commodity Brokers - England
- Aboitiz Power Corporation - Philippines
- Salva Resources Pvt Ltd - India
- Renaissance Capital - South Africa
- Electricity Authority, New Zealand
- Bhatia International Limited - India
- Central Java Power - Indonesia
- Formosa Plastics Group - Taiwan
- Orica Mining Services - Indonesia
- Eastern Energy - Thailand
- Therma Luzon, Inc, Philippines
- Meralco Power Generation, Philippines
- Binh Thuan Hamico - Vietnam
- Bayan Resources Tbk. - Indonesia
- Indika Energy - Indonesia
- PNOC Exploration Corporation - Philippines
- TeaM Sual Corporation - Philippines
- Bharathi Cement Corporation - India
- Sree Jayajothi Cements Limited - India
- Borneo Indobara - Indonesia
- Semirara Mining and Power Corporation, Philippines
- Vedanta Resources Plc - India
- Kartika Selabumi Mining - Indonesia
- GAC Shipping (India) Pvt Ltd
- Ministry of Mines - Canada
- Uttam Galva Steels Limited - India
- Videocon Industries ltd - India
- Sarangani Energy Corporation, Philippines
- Central Electricity Authority - India
- Thiess Contractors Indonesia
- International Coal Ventures Pvt Ltd - India
- Jorong Barutama Greston.PT - Indonesia
- Truba Alam Manunggal Engineering.Tbk - Indonesia
- Kohat Cement Company Ltd. - Pakistan
- AsiaOL BioFuels Corp., Philippines
- Energy Development Corp, Philippines
- Planning Commission, India
- European Bulk Services B.V. - Netherlands
- Mjunction Services Limited - India
- Karaikal Port Pvt Ltd - India
- Miang Besar Coal Terminal - Indonesia
- Toyota Tsusho Corporation, Japan
- Marubeni Corporation - India
- Jindal Steel & Power Ltd - India
- Kumho Petrochemical, South Korea
- Agrawal Coal Company - India
- Globalindo Alam Lestari - Indonesia
- Tata Chemicals Ltd - India
- Ceylon Electricity Board - Sri Lanka
- Chettinad Cement Corporation Ltd - India
- Independent Power Producers Association of India
- Maheswari Brothers Coal Limited - India
- Mintek Dendrill Indonesia
- The State Trading Corporation of India Ltd
- Bukit Makmur.PT - Indonesia
- PetroVietnam Power Coal Import and Supply Company
- India Bulls Power Limited - India
- Indogreen Group - Indonesia
- ASAPP Information Group - India
- PowerSource Philippines DevCo
- Indonesian Coal Mining Association
- Sical Logistics Limited - India
- Vizag Seaport Private Limited - India
- VISA Power Limited - India
- Essar Steel Hazira Ltd - India
- Rio Tinto Coal - Australia
- Petron Corporation, Philippines
- Bukit Baiduri Energy - Indonesia
- Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission - India
- Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission - India
- Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd, - India
- Gujarat Sidhee Cement - India
- Alfred C Toepfer International GmbH - Germany
- Power Finance Corporation Ltd., India
- Heidelberg Cement - Germany
- Bulk Trading Sa - Switzerland
- Orica Australia Pty. Ltd.
- Georgia Ports Authority, United States
- Ministry of Transport, Egypt
- CIMB Investment Bank - Malaysia
- Merrill Lynch Commodities Europe
- Kaltim Prima Coal - Indonesia
- Global Business Power Corporation, Philippines
- New Zealand Coal & Carbon
- Coastal Gujarat Power Limited - India
- Jaiprakash Power Ventures ltd
- Sinarmas Energy and Mining - Indonesia
- Kideco Jaya Agung - Indonesia
- GVK Power & Infra Limited - India
- Gujarat Mineral Development Corp Ltd - India
- Mercator Lines Limited - India
- Asia Pacific Energy Resources Ventures Inc, Philippines
- Baramulti Group, Indonesia
- Economic Council, Georgia
- Anglo American - United Kingdom
- PTC India Limited - India
- Posco Energy - South Korea
- Cement Manufacturers Association - India
- TNB Fuel Sdn Bhd - Malaysia
- Minerals Council of Australia
- Makarim & Taira - Indonesia
- Lanco Infratech Ltd - India
- Metalloyd Limited - United Kingdom
- Siam City Cement PLC, Thailand
- Sakthi Sugars Limited - India
- LBH Netherlands Bv - Netherlands
- Simpson Spence & Young - Indonesia
- Manunggal Multi Energi - Indonesia
- Aditya Birla Group - India
- Xindia Steels Limited - India
- The Treasury - Australian Government
- Petrochimia International Co. Ltd.- Taiwan
- Commonwealth Bank - Australia
- Semirara Mining Corp, Philippines
- Indo Tambangraya Megah - Indonesia
- Energy Link Ltd, New Zealand
- Ind-Barath Power Infra Limited - India
- Larsen & Toubro Limited - India
- Bhushan Steel Limited - India
- Coalindo Energy - Indonesia
- Wilmar Investment Holdings
- Straits Asia Resources Limited - Singapore
- Iligan Light & Power Inc, Philippines
- Indian Oil Corporation Limited
- Sojitz Corporation - Japan
- Antam Resourcindo - Indonesia
- McConnell Dowell - Australia
- Kapuas Tunggal Persada - Indonesia
- SN Aboitiz Power Inc, Philippines
- Global Green Power PLC Corporation, Philippines
- Kobexindo Tractors - Indoneisa
- Directorate Of Revenue Intelligence - India
- Altura Mining Limited, Indonesia
- Siam City Cement - Thailand
- Deloitte Consulting - India
- Trasteel International SA, Italy
- Ambuja Cements Ltd - India
- Bangladesh Power Developement Board
- Sindya Power Generating Company Private Ltd
- Samtan Co., Ltd - South Korea
- Attock Cement Pakistan Limited
- CNBM International Corporation - China
- Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand
- Ministry of Finance - Indonesia
- Kepco SPC Power Corporation, Philippines
- Holcim Trading Pte Ltd - Singapore
- Indian Energy Exchange, India
- Standard Chartered Bank - UAE
- Price Waterhouse Coopers - Russia
- Romanian Commodities Exchange
- Directorate General of MIneral and Coal - Indonesia
- ICICI Bank Limited - India
- SMC Global Power, Philippines
- Offshore Bulk Terminal Pte Ltd, Singapore
- Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited - India
- San Jose City I Power Corp, Philippines
- Star Paper Mills Limited - India
- Intertek Mineral Services - Indonesia
- Tamil Nadu electricity Board
- Medco Energi Mining Internasional
- The University of Queensland
- Bukit Asam (Persero) Tbk - Indonesia
- Port Waratah Coal Services - Australia
- Vijayanagar Sugar Pvt Ltd - India
- Eastern Coal Council - USA
- Africa Commodities Group - South Africa
- Chamber of Mines of South Africa
- South Luzon Thermal Energy Corporation
- Australian Commodity Traders Exchange
- Kalimantan Lumbung Energi - Indonesia
- Goldman Sachs - Singapore
- Parliament of New Zealand
- Parry Sugars Refinery, India
- Cigading International Bulk Terminal - Indonesia
- Malabar Cements Ltd - India
- Meenaskhi Energy Private Limited - India
- Bahari Cakrawala Sebuku - Indonesia
- Oldendorff Carriers - Singapore
- Edison Trading Spa - Italy
- Latin American Coal - Colombia
- Thai Mozambique Logistica
- SMG Consultants - Indonesia
- Pipit Mutiara Jaya. PT, Indonesia
- Savvy Resources Ltd - HongKong
- Riau Bara Harum - Indonesia
- Coal and Oil Company - UAE
- Global Coal Blending Company Limited - Australia
- White Energy Company Limited
- Interocean Group of Companies - India
- Dr Ramakrishna Prasad Power Pvt Ltd - India
- Banpu Public Company Limited - Thailand
- Pendopo Energi Batubara - Indonesia
- Carbofer General Trading SA - India
- Wood Mackenzie - Singapore
- Filglen & Citicon Mining (HK) Ltd - Hong Kong
- Asmin Koalindo Tuhup - Indonesia
- IEA Clean Coal Centre - UK
- Singapore Mercantile Exchange
- Dong Bac Coal Mineral Investment Coporation - Vietnam
- Karbindo Abesyapradhi - Indoneisa
- Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd - Australia
- Bhoruka Overseas - Indonesia
- Australian Coal Association
- Barasentosa Lestari - Indonesia
- Bank of Tokyo Mitsubishi UFJ Ltd
- IHS Mccloskey Coal Group - USA
- Mercuria Energy - Indonesia
- Dalmia Cement Bharat India
- Madhucon Powers Ltd - India
- Billiton Holdings Pty Ltd - Australia
- Grasim Industreis Ltd - India
|
| |
| |
|
