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, 28 July 14
S. KOREA'S KOSPO SEEKS 148K T OF 4700 NAR COAL
COALspot.com: Korea Southern Power Co Ltd (KOSPO) is seeking 148,000 tonnes of 4,700 kcal/kg NCV steaming coal for shipment between October to Nove ...
Monday, 28 July 14
CFR SOUTH CHINA COAL SWAP SLIGHTLY UP WEEK ON WEEK
COALspot.com: Coal price falling is continues as the impact oversupply and lower demand. The swap for Q3, Q4 and Q1 2015 showing slight improvement ...
Sunday, 27 July 14
RAMADAN HOLIDAYS IN INDONESIA PUTTING PRESSURE ON CHARTER RATES FROM INDONESIA - VISTAAR INDIA
COALspot.com: The freight rates were almost steady as very slight improvement in BDI by about 1 pct. The BDI was at 739 points after improvin ...
Saturday, 26 July 14
COAL MINING COMPANIES CLOSED TEMPORARILY - THE JAKARTA POST
The Sarolangun regency administration in Jambi has suspended the operations of 10 coal mining companies in line with a circular issued by Regent Ce ...
Friday, 25 July 14
U.S WEEKLY COAL PRODUCTION UP AROUND 3.5% WEEK ENDED JULY 19
COALspot.com – United States the world's second largest coal producer, produced approximately 19.00 million short tons (mmst) of coal in ...
|
|
|
Showing 3576 to 3580 news of total 6871 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
 |
|
|
| |
|
- Grasim Industreis Ltd - India
- Larsen & Toubro Limited - India
- International Coal Ventures Pvt Ltd - India
- Goldman Sachs - Singapore
- Romanian Commodities Exchange
- Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited - India
- Indika Energy - Indonesia
- Sinarmas Energy and Mining - Indonesia
- Coastal Gujarat Power Limited - India
- Makarim & Taira - Indonesia
- Bukit Asam (Persero) Tbk - Indonesia
- Lanco Infratech Ltd - India
- Carbofer General Trading SA - India
- Eastern Coal Council - USA
- Africa Commodities Group - South Africa
- Anglo American - United Kingdom
- Central Electricity Authority - India
- Ministry of Finance - Indonesia
- Therma Luzon, Inc, Philippines
- Chettinad Cement Corporation Ltd - India
- Karbindo Abesyapradhi - Indoneisa
- Indo Tambangraya Megah - Indonesia
- Tata Chemicals Ltd - India
- San Jose City I Power Corp, Philippines
- South Luzon Thermal Energy Corporation
- IHS Mccloskey Coal Group - USA
- Miang Besar Coal Terminal - Indonesia
- Formosa Plastics Group - Taiwan
- Jaiprakash Power Ventures ltd
- Borneo Indobara - Indonesia
- Iligan Light & Power Inc, Philippines
- Intertek Mineral Services - Indonesia
- Dong Bac Coal Mineral Investment Coporation - Vietnam
- Krishnapatnam Port Company Ltd. - India
- Xindia Steels Limited - India
- Bank of Tokyo Mitsubishi UFJ Ltd
- Kartika Selabumi Mining - Indonesia
- Deloitte Consulting - India
- Minerals Council of Australia
- Videocon Industries ltd - India
- Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd, - India
- Thai Mozambique Logistica
- Barasentosa Lestari - Indonesia
- MS Steel International - UAE
- Ceylon Electricity Board - Sri Lanka
- Thiess Contractors Indonesia
- Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission - India
- Wood Mackenzie - Singapore
- Meralco Power Generation, Philippines
- Siam City Cement PLC, Thailand
- Gujarat Sidhee Cement - India
- Bhushan Steel Limited - India
- CNBM International Corporation - China
- Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand
- Economic Council, Georgia
- Aboitiz Power Corporation - Philippines
- Georgia Ports Authority, United States
- Savvy Resources Ltd - HongKong
- Indian Energy Exchange, India
- SMG Consultants - Indonesia
- Posco Energy - South Korea
- Semirara Mining Corp, Philippines
- Heidelberg Cement - Germany
- Pipit Mutiara Jaya. PT, Indonesia
- Bhatia International Limited - India
- OPG Power Generation Pvt Ltd - India
- ASAPP Information Group - India
- Baramulti Group, Indonesia
- Global Coal Blending Company Limited - Australia
- Australian Commodity Traders Exchange
- Asmin Koalindo Tuhup - Indonesia
- Energy Development Corp, Philippines
- Bahari Cakrawala Sebuku - Indonesia
- Alfred C Toepfer International GmbH - Germany
- Uttam Galva Steels Limited - India
- Billiton Holdings Pty Ltd - Australia
- PTC India Limited - India
- Samtan Co., Ltd - South Korea
- Essar Steel Hazira Ltd - India
- Bukit Makmur.PT - Indonesia
- Ministry of Transport, Egypt
- GVK Power & Infra Limited - India
- IEA Clean Coal Centre - UK
- Offshore Bulk Terminal Pte Ltd, Singapore
- TNB Fuel Sdn Bhd - Malaysia
- GAC Shipping (India) Pvt Ltd
- Filglen & Citicon Mining (HK) Ltd - Hong Kong
- Parry Sugars Refinery, India
- Vedanta Resources Plc - India
- Cement Manufacturers Association - India
- Medco Energi Mining Internasional
- Parliament of New Zealand
- Mjunction Services Limited - India
- Attock Cement Pakistan Limited
- TeaM Sual Corporation - Philippines
- Power Finance Corporation Ltd., India
- Sarangani Energy Corporation, Philippines
- Madhucon Powers Ltd - India
- Tamil Nadu electricity Board
- Marubeni Corporation - India
- Truba Alam Manunggal Engineering.Tbk - Indonesia
- SN Aboitiz Power Inc, Philippines
- Kalimantan Lumbung Energi - Indonesia
- Petrochimia International Co. Ltd.- Taiwan
- Standard Chartered Bank - UAE
- The State Trading Corporation of India Ltd
- Metalloyd Limited - United Kingdom
- PetroVietnam Power Coal Import and Supply Company
- Agrawal Coal Company - India
- Indogreen Group - Indonesia
- Merrill Lynch Commodities Europe
- Vijayanagar Sugar Pvt Ltd - India
- Ministry of Mines - Canada
- Mercuria Energy - Indonesia
- Bayan Resources Tbk. - Indonesia
- Sakthi Sugars Limited - India
- Eastern Energy - Thailand
- Antam Resourcindo - Indonesia
- Latin American Coal - Colombia
- PowerSource Philippines DevCo
- Coal and Oil Company - UAE
- Orica Australia Pty. Ltd.
- Ambuja Cements Ltd - India
- Bharathi Cement Corporation - India
- Timah Investasi Mineral - Indoneisa
- Sical Logistics Limited - India
- Petron Corporation, Philippines
- Simpson Spence & Young - Indonesia
- India Bulls Power Limited - India
- Riau Bara Harum - Indonesia
- Cigading International Bulk Terminal - Indonesia
- GMR Energy Limited - India
- Indonesian Coal Mining Association
- Star Paper Mills Limited - India
- Kapuas Tunggal Persada - Indonesia
- Indian Oil Corporation Limited
- Sojitz Corporation - Japan
- VISA Power Limited - India
- Kobexindo Tractors - Indoneisa
- Manunggal Multi Energi - Indonesia
- Oldendorff Carriers - Singapore
- Bangladesh Power Developement Board
- ICICI Bank Limited - India
- Planning Commission, India
- Kepco SPC Power Corporation, Philippines
- Straits Asia Resources Limited - Singapore
- Sindya Power Generating Company Private Ltd
- European Bulk Services B.V. - Netherlands
- Central Java Power - Indonesia
- LBH Netherlands Bv - Netherlands
- New Zealand Coal & Carbon
- Holcim Trading Pte Ltd - Singapore
- Global Business Power Corporation, Philippines
- Altura Mining Limited, Indonesia
- McConnell Dowell - Australia
- Mintek Dendrill Indonesia
- The Treasury - Australian Government
- Directorate General of MIneral and Coal - Indonesia
- Price Waterhouse Coopers - Russia
- Directorate Of Revenue Intelligence - India
- Dr Ramakrishna Prasad Power Pvt Ltd - India
- Edison Trading Spa - Italy
- PNOC Exploration Corporation - Philippines
- Independent Power Producers Association of India
- Mercator Lines Limited - India
- Maheswari Brothers Coal Limited - India
- Renaissance Capital - South Africa
- Bukit Baiduri Energy - Indonesia
- Ind-Barath Power Infra Limited - India
- Sree Jayajothi Cements Limited - India
- Coalindo Energy - Indonesia
- SMC Global Power, Philippines
- Interocean Group of Companies - India
- Electricity Authority, New Zealand
- Karaikal Port Pvt Ltd - India
- Rio Tinto Coal - Australia
- AsiaOL BioFuels Corp., Philippines
- Port Waratah Coal Services - Australia
- White Energy Company Limited
- Gujarat Mineral Development Corp Ltd - India
- Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd - Australia
- Vizag Seaport Private Limited - India
- Orica Mining Services - Indonesia
- Chamber of Mines of South Africa
- Energy Link Ltd, New Zealand
- Trasteel International SA, Italy
- Kaltim Prima Coal - Indonesia
- Bhoruka Overseas - Indonesia
- Jorong Barutama Greston.PT - Indonesia
- Salva Resources Pvt Ltd - India
- Siam City Cement - Thailand
- Singapore Mercantile Exchange
- Binh Thuan Hamico - Vietnam
- Banpu Public Company Limited - Thailand
- Malabar Cements Ltd - India
- Kohat Cement Company Ltd. - Pakistan
- The University of Queensland
- Bulk Trading Sa - Switzerland
- GN Power Mariveles Coal Plant, Philippines
- Toyota Tsusho Corporation, Japan
- Kumho Petrochemical, South Korea
- CIMB Investment Bank - Malaysia
- Kideco Jaya Agung - Indonesia
- Pendopo Energi Batubara - Indonesia
- Meenaskhi Energy Private Limited - India
- Dalmia Cement Bharat India
- Wilmar Investment Holdings
- Global Green Power PLC Corporation, Philippines
- Semirara Mining and Power Corporation, Philippines
- Asia Pacific Energy Resources Ventures Inc, Philippines
- Australian Coal Association
- Commonwealth Bank - Australia
- Jindal Steel & Power Ltd - India
- London Commodity Brokers - England
- Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission - India
- Globalindo Alam Lestari - Indonesia
- Aditya Birla Group - India
|
| |
| |
|
