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.
|
|
Tuesday, 22 July 14
ASIAN SUB-BITUMINOUS COAL USERS' GROUP CONFERENCE
Press Release: Registration Open for Fourth Annual Asian Sub-Bituminous Coal Users’ Group Conference
Register today for this year&r ...
Monday, 21 July 14
25% OF INDIA'S POWER PLANTS WERE HAVING SUPER CRITICAL COAL STOCK - COAL AND POWER MINISTER
25% of India’s power plants were having super critical coal stock; power utilities have also been advised to enhance the import of coal - Coa ...
Monday, 21 July 14
INDONESIA'S STATE CONTROLLED COAL MINER BUKIT ASAM ENJOYED HIGHER SELLING PRICE DURING THIS STORMY MARKET
COALspot.com: PT Bukit Asam, the Indonesian government controlled coal miner announced today that, the company has produced 7.70 million tons of co ...
Monday, 21 July 14
CFR SOUTH CHINA COAL Q3 DELIVERY SWAPS LOST 16% SINCE JANUARY 17, 2014
COALspot.com: Coal price falling is continues as the impact oversupply and lower demand. Market is not showing any positive trend in near future.
...
Sunday, 20 July 14
THE FREIGHT MARKET CONTINUED ITS DOWNWARD TREND
COALspot.com: The market continued its downward trend this week as all segments were down compared to last week. The Cape and Panamax indices being ...
|
|
|
Showing 3591 to 3595 news of total 6871 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
 |
|
|
| |
|
- Vizag Seaport Private Limited - India
- Australian Coal Association
- Simpson Spence & Young - Indonesia
- Bulk Trading Sa - Switzerland
- London Commodity Brokers - England
- Economic Council, Georgia
- The University of Queensland
- Asmin Koalindo Tuhup - Indonesia
- Vijayanagar Sugar Pvt Ltd - India
- Coastal Gujarat Power Limited - India
- Tamil Nadu electricity Board
- McConnell Dowell - Australia
- Jaiprakash Power Ventures ltd
- Agrawal Coal Company - India
- Energy Development Corp, Philippines
- Manunggal Multi Energi - Indonesia
- Intertek Mineral Services - Indonesia
- Kideco Jaya Agung - Indonesia
- European Bulk Services B.V. - Netherlands
- Anglo American - United Kingdom
- Cigading International Bulk Terminal - Indonesia
- Price Waterhouse Coopers - Russia
- Ministry of Transport, Egypt
- Antam Resourcindo - Indonesia
- Kohat Cement Company Ltd. - Pakistan
- Star Paper Mills Limited - India
- Kalimantan Lumbung Energi - Indonesia
- Edison Trading Spa - Italy
- Central Electricity Authority - India
- Sakthi Sugars Limited - India
- Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd, - India
- Kepco SPC Power Corporation, Philippines
- Holcim Trading Pte Ltd - Singapore
- Kumho Petrochemical, South Korea
- Planning Commission, India
- GAC Shipping (India) Pvt Ltd
- Baramulti Group, Indonesia
- India Bulls Power Limited - India
- Meralco Power Generation, Philippines
- Therma Luzon, Inc, Philippines
- Goldman Sachs - Singapore
- Billiton Holdings Pty Ltd - Australia
- Binh Thuan Hamico - Vietnam
- Heidelberg Cement - Germany
- Bukit Makmur.PT - Indonesia
- Wood Mackenzie - Singapore
- Energy Link Ltd, New Zealand
- Georgia Ports Authority, United States
- CNBM International Corporation - China
- Aboitiz Power Corporation - Philippines
- Coal and Oil Company - UAE
- Formosa Plastics Group - Taiwan
- Sical Logistics Limited - India
- Truba Alam Manunggal Engineering.Tbk - Indonesia
- TNB Fuel Sdn Bhd - Malaysia
- Siam City Cement PLC, Thailand
- Electricity Authority, New Zealand
- Indian Energy Exchange, India
- Singapore Mercantile Exchange
- Essar Steel Hazira Ltd - India
- OPG Power Generation Pvt Ltd - India
- Independent Power Producers Association of India
- Bhushan Steel Limited - India
- Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission - India
- PTC India Limited - India
- Bhoruka Overseas - Indonesia
- Mercuria Energy - Indonesia
- Sojitz Corporation - Japan
- Parliament of New Zealand
- PowerSource Philippines DevCo
- Eastern Energy - Thailand
- Posco Energy - South Korea
- Africa Commodities Group - South Africa
- Metalloyd Limited - United Kingdom
- Mintek Dendrill Indonesia
- Marubeni Corporation - India
- Gujarat Sidhee Cement - India
- Thiess Contractors Indonesia
- Bangladesh Power Developement Board
- PetroVietnam Power Coal Import and Supply Company
- Siam City Cement - Thailand
- Meenaskhi Energy Private Limited - India
- Videocon Industries ltd - India
- Xindia Steels Limited - India
- Alfred C Toepfer International GmbH - Germany
- Sarangani Energy Corporation, Philippines
- Wilmar Investment Holdings
- Ministry of Finance - Indonesia
- Indika Energy - Indonesia
- Kobexindo Tractors - Indoneisa
- Romanian Commodities Exchange
- Port Waratah Coal Services - Australia
- Orica Mining Services - Indonesia
- Eastern Coal Council - USA
- Bank of Tokyo Mitsubishi UFJ Ltd
- Grasim Industreis Ltd - India
- Semirara Mining Corp, Philippines
- Aditya Birla Group - India
- ASAPP Information Group - India
- SMG Consultants - Indonesia
- Pipit Mutiara Jaya. PT, Indonesia
- Coalindo Energy - Indonesia
- Toyota Tsusho Corporation, Japan
- Merrill Lynch Commodities Europe
- Riau Bara Harum - Indonesia
- Bukit Asam (Persero) Tbk - Indonesia
- Bukit Baiduri Energy - Indonesia
- GMR Energy Limited - India
- Medco Energi Mining Internasional
- Uttam Galva Steels Limited - India
- Indo Tambangraya Megah - Indonesia
- Lanco Infratech Ltd - India
- Ambuja Cements Ltd - India
- Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand
- Renaissance Capital - South Africa
- Dalmia Cement Bharat India
- ICICI Bank Limited - India
- International Coal Ventures Pvt Ltd - India
- Miang Besar Coal Terminal - Indonesia
- MS Steel International - UAE
- Directorate Of Revenue Intelligence - India
- IEA Clean Coal Centre - UK
- Semirara Mining and Power Corporation, Philippines
- Chamber of Mines of South Africa
- Dr Ramakrishna Prasad Power Pvt Ltd - India
- Indian Oil Corporation Limited
- Altura Mining Limited, Indonesia
- Straits Asia Resources Limited - Singapore
- Trasteel International SA, Italy
- Carbofer General Trading SA - India
- Malabar Cements Ltd - India
- Borneo Indobara - Indonesia
- Salva Resources Pvt Ltd - India
- Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission - India
- The Treasury - Australian Government
- Kartika Selabumi Mining - Indonesia
- Maheswari Brothers Coal Limited - India
- Jindal Steel & Power Ltd - India
- PNOC Exploration Corporation - Philippines
- Latin American Coal - Colombia
- Global Green Power PLC Corporation, Philippines
- San Jose City I Power Corp, Philippines
- Kaltim Prima Coal - Indonesia
- LBH Netherlands Bv - Netherlands
- Ind-Barath Power Infra Limited - India
- Iligan Light & Power Inc, Philippines
- Madhucon Powers Ltd - India
- Global Coal Blending Company Limited - Australia
- Power Finance Corporation Ltd., India
- South Luzon Thermal Energy Corporation
- Sree Jayajothi Cements Limited - India
- Pendopo Energi Batubara - Indonesia
- Tata Chemicals Ltd - India
- Filglen & Citicon Mining (HK) Ltd - Hong Kong
- Samtan Co., Ltd - South Korea
- Bhatia International Limited - India
- Dong Bac Coal Mineral Investment Coporation - Vietnam
- Petron Corporation, Philippines
- Mjunction Services Limited - India
- CIMB Investment Bank - Malaysia
- Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited - India
- Directorate General of MIneral and Coal - Indonesia
- Gujarat Mineral Development Corp Ltd - India
- New Zealand Coal & Carbon
- IHS Mccloskey Coal Group - USA
- Bharathi Cement Corporation - India
- GN Power Mariveles Coal Plant, Philippines
- Australian Commodity Traders Exchange
- Indogreen Group - Indonesia
- Sinarmas Energy and Mining - Indonesia
- Oldendorff Carriers - Singapore
- TeaM Sual Corporation - Philippines
- Ceylon Electricity Board - Sri Lanka
- Globalindo Alam Lestari - Indonesia
- Offshore Bulk Terminal Pte Ltd, Singapore
- Deloitte Consulting - India
- Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd - Australia
- Savvy Resources Ltd - HongKong
- VISA Power Limited - India
- Minerals Council of Australia
- Petrochimia International Co. Ltd.- Taiwan
- Bahari Cakrawala Sebuku - Indonesia
- Sindya Power Generating Company Private Ltd
- GVK Power & Infra Limited - India
- Timah Investasi Mineral - Indoneisa
- Cement Manufacturers Association - India
- Larsen & Toubro Limited - India
- Rio Tinto Coal - Australia
- Central Java Power - Indonesia
- SMC Global Power, Philippines
- White Energy Company Limited
- Bayan Resources Tbk. - Indonesia
- Banpu Public Company Limited - Thailand
- AsiaOL BioFuels Corp., Philippines
- Thai Mozambique Logistica
- Interocean Group of Companies - India
- Makarim & Taira - Indonesia
- Barasentosa Lestari - Indonesia
- SN Aboitiz Power Inc, Philippines
- Karbindo Abesyapradhi - Indoneisa
- Indonesian Coal Mining Association
- Chettinad Cement Corporation Ltd - India
- Ministry of Mines - Canada
- The State Trading Corporation of India Ltd
- Krishnapatnam Port Company Ltd. - India
- Jorong Barutama Greston.PT - Indonesia
- Global Business Power Corporation, Philippines
- Orica Australia Pty. Ltd.
- Commonwealth Bank - Australia
- Mercator Lines Limited - India
- Asia Pacific Energy Resources Ventures Inc, Philippines
- Attock Cement Pakistan Limited
- Karaikal Port Pvt Ltd - India
- Parry Sugars Refinery, India
- Vedanta Resources Plc - India
- Standard Chartered Bank - UAE
- Kapuas Tunggal Persada - Indonesia
|
| |
| |
|
