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.
|
|
Sunday, 13 July 14
PANAMAX INDEX GAINS SLIGHTLY THIS WEEK; CAPE INDEX FALLS ALMOST 21.40%
COALspot.com: This week the freight market fell again after gaining last week. The cape index was down almost 21.40 pct and closed at 1465 points.
...
Friday, 11 July 14
EUROPE HAS A SUBSTANTIAL SURPLUS IN COAL SUPPLIES; RENEWABLE ENERGIES ARE REDUCING THE FULL-LOAD OPERATING HOURS OF HARD COAL-FIRED POWER PLANTS - VDKI
COALspot.com: General conditions for coal-fired power plants must be improved if the energy turnaround is to be a success, said German coal importe ...
Friday, 11 July 14
DR.CIESLIK RE-ELECTED AS CEO OF GERMAN COAL IMPORTER ASSOCIATION (VDKI)
Press Release : Dr Cieslik re-elected as CEO of German Coal Importer Association (VDKi) for the period 2014 – 2018. The German Coal Importer ...
Friday, 11 July 14
PORT OF NEWCASTLE SHIPPED $ 1.031 BILLION WORTH OF 11.744 MILLION TONS OF COAL IN JUNE 2014
COALspot.com: Port of Newcastle has shipped 11,744,396 tons of coal for the month ended 30 June 2014. According to Port’s monthly report, YTD ...
Friday, 11 July 14
UNITED STATE'S MONTHLY COAL OUTPUT FALLS 5.53% IN JUNE
COALspot.com – United States the world's second largest coal producer, produced approximately 18.1 million short tons (mmst) of coal in a ...
|
|
|
Showing 3606 to 3610 news of total 6871 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
 |
|
|
| |
|
- Gujarat Mineral Development Corp Ltd - India
- PNOC Exploration Corporation - Philippines
- Aboitiz Power Corporation - Philippines
- Eastern Energy - Thailand
- Ceylon Electricity Board - Sri Lanka
- Videocon Industries ltd - India
- Savvy Resources Ltd - HongKong
- Kideco Jaya Agung - Indonesia
- Kohat Cement Company Ltd. - Pakistan
- Toyota Tsusho Corporation, Japan
- Edison Trading Spa - Italy
- Siam City Cement PLC, Thailand
- Riau Bara Harum - Indonesia
- Essar Steel Hazira Ltd - India
- Dr Ramakrishna Prasad Power Pvt Ltd - India
- GVK Power & Infra Limited - India
- Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission - India
- Georgia Ports Authority, United States
- Bhatia International Limited - India
- Heidelberg Cement - Germany
- Bukit Asam (Persero) Tbk - Indonesia
- Cigading International Bulk Terminal - Indonesia
- Karaikal Port Pvt Ltd - India
- Attock Cement Pakistan Limited
- Makarim & Taira - Indonesia
- Grasim Industreis Ltd - India
- Marubeni Corporation - India
- Indo Tambangraya Megah - Indonesia
- Sindya Power Generating Company Private Ltd
- Medco Energi Mining Internasional
- International Coal Ventures Pvt Ltd - India
- Orica Australia Pty. Ltd.
- Xindia Steels Limited - India
- Barasentosa Lestari - Indonesia
- Latin American Coal - Colombia
- Metalloyd Limited - United Kingdom
- Altura Mining Limited, Indonesia
- Dong Bac Coal Mineral Investment Coporation - Vietnam
- Borneo Indobara - Indonesia
- Miang Besar Coal Terminal - Indonesia
- SMG Consultants - Indonesia
- McConnell Dowell - Australia
- Carbofer General Trading SA - India
- GN Power Mariveles Coal Plant, Philippines
- Australian Commodity Traders Exchange
- Dalmia Cement Bharat India
- Kaltim Prima Coal - Indonesia
- Antam Resourcindo - Indonesia
- Mercator Lines Limited - India
- Intertek Mineral Services - Indonesia
- Energy Link Ltd, New Zealand
- Ind-Barath Power Infra Limited - India
- Star Paper Mills Limited - India
- Global Coal Blending Company Limited - Australia
- CNBM International Corporation - China
- Chettinad Cement Corporation Ltd - India
- SMC Global Power, Philippines
- Anglo American - United Kingdom
- Sakthi Sugars Limited - India
- TNB Fuel Sdn Bhd - Malaysia
- Malabar Cements Ltd - India
- Eastern Coal Council - USA
- Standard Chartered Bank - UAE
- Salva Resources Pvt Ltd - India
- Bank of Tokyo Mitsubishi UFJ Ltd
- Sical Logistics Limited - India
- LBH Netherlands Bv - Netherlands
- GMR Energy Limited - India
- Bangladesh Power Developement Board
- GAC Shipping (India) Pvt Ltd
- PetroVietnam Power Coal Import and Supply Company
- Bhushan Steel Limited - India
- Ministry of Finance - Indonesia
- PTC India Limited - India
- Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand
- Petron Corporation, Philippines
- OPG Power Generation Pvt Ltd - India
- India Bulls Power Limited - India
- Ambuja Cements Ltd - India
- AsiaOL BioFuels Corp., Philippines
- Straits Asia Resources Limited - Singapore
- Electricity Authority, New Zealand
- Kumho Petrochemical, South Korea
- Larsen & Toubro Limited - India
- Maheswari Brothers Coal Limited - India
- Alfred C Toepfer International GmbH - Germany
- Power Finance Corporation Ltd., India
- Minerals Council of Australia
- Siam City Cement - Thailand
- Wilmar Investment Holdings
- The State Trading Corporation of India Ltd
- Asmin Koalindo Tuhup - Indonesia
- Central Electricity Authority - India
- Vijayanagar Sugar Pvt Ltd - India
- Romanian Commodities Exchange
- Simpson Spence & Young - Indonesia
- Parliament of New Zealand
- South Luzon Thermal Energy Corporation
- Aditya Birla Group - India
- Sarangani Energy Corporation, Philippines
- Meenaskhi Energy Private Limited - India
- Truba Alam Manunggal Engineering.Tbk - Indonesia
- Renaissance Capital - South Africa
- Indian Energy Exchange, India
- Bharathi Cement Corporation - India
- Asia Pacific Energy Resources Ventures Inc, Philippines
- London Commodity Brokers - England
- Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd - Australia
- Baramulti Group, Indonesia
- Port Waratah Coal Services - Australia
- PowerSource Philippines DevCo
- Offshore Bulk Terminal Pte Ltd, Singapore
- Jaiprakash Power Ventures ltd
- Goldman Sachs - Singapore
- Bukit Makmur.PT - Indonesia
- Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission - India
- Jorong Barutama Greston.PT - Indonesia
- Tamil Nadu electricity Board
- Mintek Dendrill Indonesia
- Indogreen Group - Indonesia
- Vizag Seaport Private Limited - India
- Bukit Baiduri Energy - Indonesia
- Merrill Lynch Commodities Europe
- Oldendorff Carriers - Singapore
- European Bulk Services B.V. - Netherlands
- Kapuas Tunggal Persada - Indonesia
- Central Java Power - Indonesia
- CIMB Investment Bank - Malaysia
- Price Waterhouse Coopers - Russia
- Bulk Trading Sa - Switzerland
- Manunggal Multi Energi - Indonesia
- Bayan Resources Tbk. - Indonesia
- New Zealand Coal & Carbon
- Energy Development Corp, Philippines
- Samtan Co., Ltd - South Korea
- Singapore Mercantile Exchange
- Sinarmas Energy and Mining - Indonesia
- Kartika Selabumi Mining - Indonesia
- Indika Energy - Indonesia
- Gujarat Sidhee Cement - India
- The Treasury - Australian Government
- Coal and Oil Company - UAE
- Uttam Galva Steels Limited - India
- Pipit Mutiara Jaya. PT, Indonesia
- Commonwealth Bank - Australia
- Global Green Power PLC Corporation, Philippines
- Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd, - India
- Mjunction Services Limited - India
- Trasteel International SA, Italy
- IHS Mccloskey Coal Group - USA
- ASAPP Information Group - India
- Filglen & Citicon Mining (HK) Ltd - Hong Kong
- Semirara Mining and Power Corporation, Philippines
- Formosa Plastics Group - Taiwan
- ICICI Bank Limited - India
- IEA Clean Coal Centre - UK
- Ministry of Mines - Canada
- VISA Power Limited - India
- Economic Council, Georgia
- Wood Mackenzie - Singapore
- Ministry of Transport, Egypt
- Parry Sugars Refinery, India
- Globalindo Alam Lestari - Indonesia
- Billiton Holdings Pty Ltd - Australia
- San Jose City I Power Corp, Philippines
- Timah Investasi Mineral - Indoneisa
- Holcim Trading Pte Ltd - Singapore
- Jindal Steel & Power Ltd - India
- Meralco Power Generation, Philippines
- Banpu Public Company Limited - Thailand
- Agrawal Coal Company - India
- Kobexindo Tractors - Indoneisa
- Karbindo Abesyapradhi - Indoneisa
- Planning Commission, India
- TeaM Sual Corporation - Philippines
- Vedanta Resources Plc - India
- Thai Mozambique Logistica
- Directorate Of Revenue Intelligence - India
- Indian Oil Corporation Limited
- Posco Energy - South Korea
- White Energy Company Limited
- Sojitz Corporation - Japan
- Thiess Contractors Indonesia
- Deloitte Consulting - India
- Binh Thuan Hamico - Vietnam
- Africa Commodities Group - South Africa
- The University of Queensland
- Rio Tinto Coal - Australia
- Therma Luzon, Inc, Philippines
- Mercuria Energy - Indonesia
- Coalindo Energy - Indonesia
- Australian Coal Association
- Pendopo Energi Batubara - Indonesia
- Sree Jayajothi Cements Limited - India
- Lanco Infratech Ltd - India
- Madhucon Powers Ltd - India
- Petrochimia International Co. Ltd.- Taiwan
- Bahari Cakrawala Sebuku - Indonesia
- Kalimantan Lumbung Energi - Indonesia
- Semirara Mining Corp, Philippines
- Kepco SPC Power Corporation, Philippines
- Bhoruka Overseas - Indonesia
- MS Steel International - UAE
- Coastal Gujarat Power Limited - India
- Interocean Group of Companies - India
- Directorate General of MIneral and Coal - Indonesia
- Iligan Light & Power Inc, Philippines
- Indonesian Coal Mining Association
- Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited - India
- Independent Power Producers Association of India
- Global Business Power Corporation, Philippines
- Krishnapatnam Port Company Ltd. - India
- SN Aboitiz Power Inc, Philippines
- Cement Manufacturers Association - India
- Chamber of Mines of South Africa
- Orica Mining Services - Indonesia
- Tata Chemicals Ltd - India
|
| |
| |
|
