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, 23 July 14
HARD COAL 2013: THE WORLD'S SECOND-MOST IMPORTANT ENERGY SOURCE AND GUARANTOR FOR THE SECURITY OF ENERGY SUPPLIES DURING TIMES OF CRISIS
Hard coal is again in 2013 the fastest-growing fossil primary energy source in the world. As shown in the BP Statistical Review 2014, it covered ab ...
Tuesday, 22 July 14
INDONESIAN ELECTION RESULT ENCOURAGING FOR FOREIGN INVESTMENT IN ENERGY AND MINING SECTORS - WOOD MACKENZIE
Joko Widodo-Jusuf Kalla has been announced as the official winner of Indonesia's presidential election. Joko Widodo, or Jokowi, is viewed as a ...
Tuesday, 22 July 14
THE CURRENT COAL PRICES ARE UNPROFITABLE FOR MINERS; COAL PRICES WILL GRADUALLY INCREASE - FITCH
COALspot.com: The Fitch Ratings expect the benchmark Newcastle coal prices (currently at about USD70/MT) to gradually increase.
Fitch's la ...
Tuesday, 22 July 14
SUB-BIT FOB INDONESIA COAL Q3' 14 DOWN 5.21%; Q4' 14 DOWN 3.56%; Q1' 15 DOWN 4.75% M-O-M
COALspot.com: Indonesian coal swaps for average Q3’ 2014 flat on day, weak week on week and on month according to AsiaClear OTC coal swap' ...
Tuesday, 22 July 14
INDONESIA'S MINERAL EXPORT BAN: CHINA UNDER PRESSURE? - CLARKSONS
In January 2014, Indonesia introduced new regulations on exports of unprocessed minerals. Exports of some minerals have been heavily taxed, whilst ...
|
|
|
Showing 3586 to 3590 news of total 6871 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
 |
|
|
| |
|
- Commonwealth Bank - Australia
- Bank of Tokyo Mitsubishi UFJ Ltd
- Sojitz Corporation - Japan
- White Energy Company Limited
- TeaM Sual Corporation - Philippines
- Parry Sugars Refinery, India
- Edison Trading Spa - Italy
- Intertek Mineral Services - Indonesia
- MS Steel International - UAE
- Bangladesh Power Developement Board
- Vedanta Resources Plc - India
- Indian Oil Corporation Limited
- Bukit Asam (Persero) Tbk - Indonesia
- Offshore Bulk Terminal Pte Ltd, Singapore
- Sical Logistics Limited - India
- Semirara Mining Corp, Philippines
- Carbofer General Trading SA - India
- Gujarat Sidhee Cement - India
- Vijayanagar Sugar Pvt Ltd - India
- Formosa Plastics Group - Taiwan
- Wilmar Investment Holdings
- SN Aboitiz Power Inc, Philippines
- Rio Tinto Coal - Australia
- The State Trading Corporation of India Ltd
- Krishnapatnam Port Company Ltd. - India
- Aboitiz Power Corporation - Philippines
- Riau Bara Harum - Indonesia
- Sinarmas Energy and Mining - Indonesia
- Indonesian Coal Mining Association
- Central Java Power - Indonesia
- Indo Tambangraya Megah - Indonesia
- Australian Coal Association
- Antam Resourcindo - Indonesia
- ASAPP Information Group - India
- Attock Cement Pakistan Limited
- OPG Power Generation Pvt Ltd - India
- SMC Global Power, Philippines
- ICICI Bank Limited - India
- Uttam Galva Steels Limited - India
- SMG Consultants - Indonesia
- Asia Pacific Energy Resources Ventures Inc, Philippines
- Siam City Cement PLC, Thailand
- PNOC Exploration Corporation - Philippines
- Indian Energy Exchange, India
- TNB Fuel Sdn Bhd - Malaysia
- Iligan Light & Power Inc, Philippines
- India Bulls Power Limited - India
- LBH Netherlands Bv - Netherlands
- Coalindo Energy - Indonesia
- Malabar Cements Ltd - India
- IHS Mccloskey Coal Group - USA
- Wood Mackenzie - Singapore
- GAC Shipping (India) Pvt Ltd
- Star Paper Mills Limited - India
- Economic Council, Georgia
- Mjunction Services Limited - India
- Pendopo Energi Batubara - Indonesia
- Directorate General of MIneral and Coal - Indonesia
- Petron Corporation, Philippines
- The University of Queensland
- Kepco SPC Power Corporation, Philippines
- Borneo Indobara - Indonesia
- Parliament of New Zealand
- Price Waterhouse Coopers - Russia
- Kapuas Tunggal Persada - Indonesia
- Marubeni Corporation - India
- Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd, - India
- Bhoruka Overseas - Indonesia
- Global Green Power PLC Corporation, Philippines
- South Luzon Thermal Energy Corporation
- New Zealand Coal & Carbon
- Aditya Birla Group - India
- McConnell Dowell - Australia
- Africa Commodities Group - South Africa
- Romanian Commodities Exchange
- Bukit Makmur.PT - Indonesia
- Salva Resources Pvt Ltd - India
- Kideco Jaya Agung - Indonesia
- Petrochimia International Co. Ltd.- Taiwan
- Savvy Resources Ltd - HongKong
- Chamber of Mines of South Africa
- PTC India Limited - India
- Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand
- Port Waratah Coal Services - Australia
- Chettinad Cement Corporation Ltd - India
- Samtan Co., Ltd - South Korea
- Grasim Industreis Ltd - India
- Energy Link Ltd, New Zealand
- CIMB Investment Bank - Malaysia
- International Coal Ventures Pvt Ltd - India
- Bhushan Steel Limited - India
- Mintek Dendrill Indonesia
- Thai Mozambique Logistica
- Thiess Contractors Indonesia
- Bulk Trading Sa - Switzerland
- Indogreen Group - Indonesia
- CNBM International Corporation - China
- Global Coal Blending Company Limited - Australia
- Australian Commodity Traders Exchange
- Miang Besar Coal Terminal - Indonesia
- Asmin Koalindo Tuhup - Indonesia
- Central Electricity Authority - India
- Standard Chartered Bank - UAE
- Interocean Group of Companies - India
- Gujarat Mineral Development Corp Ltd - India
- GMR Energy Limited - India
- Barasentosa Lestari - Indonesia
- Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd - Australia
- Bharathi Cement Corporation - India
- Semirara Mining and Power Corporation, Philippines
- Ministry of Finance - Indonesia
- Therma Luzon, Inc, Philippines
- Meralco Power Generation, Philippines
- Toyota Tsusho Corporation, Japan
- Eastern Coal Council - USA
- Cigading International Bulk Terminal - Indonesia
- Meenaskhi Energy Private Limited - India
- Power Finance Corporation Ltd., India
- Lanco Infratech Ltd - India
- Kaltim Prima Coal - Indonesia
- AsiaOL BioFuels Corp., Philippines
- Siam City Cement - Thailand
- Sree Jayajothi Cements Limited - India
- Manunggal Multi Energi - Indonesia
- Globalindo Alam Lestari - Indonesia
- Banpu Public Company Limited - Thailand
- Larsen & Toubro Limited - India
- Dalmia Cement Bharat India
- Kohat Cement Company Ltd. - Pakistan
- Sindya Power Generating Company Private Ltd
- Makarim & Taira - Indonesia
- Ambuja Cements Ltd - India
- Trasteel International SA, Italy
- Indika Energy - Indonesia
- Planning Commission, India
- Videocon Industries ltd - India
- Alfred C Toepfer International GmbH - Germany
- Xindia Steels Limited - India
- Coal and Oil Company - UAE
- Madhucon Powers Ltd - India
- Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited - India
- Filglen & Citicon Mining (HK) Ltd - Hong Kong
- Bayan Resources Tbk. - Indonesia
- Singapore Mercantile Exchange
- Truba Alam Manunggal Engineering.Tbk - Indonesia
- Simpson Spence & Young - Indonesia
- London Commodity Brokers - England
- Mercator Lines Limited - India
- Latin American Coal - Colombia
- Anglo American - United Kingdom
- Holcim Trading Pte Ltd - Singapore
- Bukit Baiduri Energy - Indonesia
- European Bulk Services B.V. - Netherlands
- Heidelberg Cement - Germany
- Agrawal Coal Company - India
- Tata Chemicals Ltd - India
- Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission - India
- Altura Mining Limited, Indonesia
- GVK Power & Infra Limited - India
- Sarangani Energy Corporation, Philippines
- IEA Clean Coal Centre - UK
- Kartika Selabumi Mining - Indonesia
- Bhatia International Limited - India
- Electricity Authority, New Zealand
- Kumho Petrochemical, South Korea
- Sakthi Sugars Limited - India
- PetroVietnam Power Coal Import and Supply Company
- Bahari Cakrawala Sebuku - Indonesia
- GN Power Mariveles Coal Plant, Philippines
- Independent Power Producers Association of India
- Kalimantan Lumbung Energi - Indonesia
- San Jose City I Power Corp, Philippines
- Ind-Barath Power Infra Limited - India
- Jindal Steel & Power Ltd - India
- Mercuria Energy - Indonesia
- Renaissance Capital - South Africa
- Metalloyd Limited - United Kingdom
- Jorong Barutama Greston.PT - Indonesia
- Ministry of Mines - Canada
- Orica Mining Services - Indonesia
- Billiton Holdings Pty Ltd - Australia
- Pipit Mutiara Jaya. PT, Indonesia
- Coastal Gujarat Power Limited - India
- Cement Manufacturers Association - India
- Dr Ramakrishna Prasad Power Pvt Ltd - India
- Jaiprakash Power Ventures ltd
- Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission - India
- Ministry of Transport, Egypt
- Global Business Power Corporation, Philippines
- Goldman Sachs - Singapore
- Deloitte Consulting - India
- Baramulti Group, Indonesia
- Tamil Nadu electricity Board
- Georgia Ports Authority, United States
- Medco Energi Mining Internasional
- Timah Investasi Mineral - Indoneisa
- Vizag Seaport Private Limited - India
- Maheswari Brothers Coal Limited - India
- Eastern Energy - Thailand
- Orica Australia Pty. Ltd.
- Binh Thuan Hamico - Vietnam
- Dong Bac Coal Mineral Investment Coporation - Vietnam
- Directorate Of Revenue Intelligence - India
- Karbindo Abesyapradhi - Indoneisa
- Straits Asia Resources Limited - Singapore
- Minerals Council of Australia
- Energy Development Corp, Philippines
- VISA Power Limited - India
- Ceylon Electricity Board - Sri Lanka
- Kobexindo Tractors - Indoneisa
- Karaikal Port Pvt Ltd - India
- Merrill Lynch Commodities Europe
- The Treasury - Australian Government
- PowerSource Philippines DevCo
- Oldendorff Carriers - Singapore
- Posco Energy - South Korea
- Essar Steel Hazira Ltd - India
|
| |
| |
|
