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, 09 July 14
SHIPPING MARKET INSIGHT - PANOS TSILINGIRIS
The mini-boom in dry bulker values catapulted ship prices too fast too far over the last one-and-a-half year. The concurrence of historically low p ...
Tuesday, 08 July 14
INDONESIAN COAL PRICE REFERENCE FALL AGAIN IN JULY; LOST 1.62%
COALspot.com - The Ministry of Energy & Mineral Resources of Indonesia again revised down the coal bench mark price in July. HBA for month of J ...
Tuesday, 08 July 14
ENERGY IN THE MIX - INTERMODAL SHIPBROKERS
With the Tanker freight market having showed much promise this year compared to the performance that had been noted during the previous five, it is ...
Monday, 07 July 14
INDONESIA STATE-CONTROLLED COAL MINER BUKIT ASAM TO TRADE COAL ON-LINE THROUGH JFX
COALspot.com: Indonesian state owned coal miner PT Tambang Batubara Bukit Asam Tbk (PTBA) has teamed up with Jakarta Futures Exchange (JFX) to sell ...
Monday, 07 July 14
RBCT, THE WORLD'S SINGLE LARGEST EXPORT COAL TERMINAL SHIPPED 31.91 MMT OF COAL IN H1 2014
COALspot.com: South Africa's Richards Bay Coal Terminal (RBCT) the world’s single largest export coal terminal, shipped 31.91 million ton ...
|
|
|
Showing 3616 to 3620 news of total 6871 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
 |
|
|
| |
|
- Simpson Spence & Young - Indonesia
- Directorate Of Revenue Intelligence - India
- Posco Energy - South Korea
- Parliament of New Zealand
- Globalindo Alam Lestari - Indonesia
- Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission - India
- Wilmar Investment Holdings
- Antam Resourcindo - Indonesia
- Truba Alam Manunggal Engineering.Tbk - Indonesia
- Jaiprakash Power Ventures ltd
- IEA Clean Coal Centre - UK
- Bhoruka Overseas - Indonesia
- Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission - India
- Tata Chemicals Ltd - India
- Altura Mining Limited, Indonesia
- Central Electricity Authority - India
- Semirara Mining Corp, Philippines
- Marubeni Corporation - India
- Energy Development Corp, Philippines
- Parry Sugars Refinery, India
- Toyota Tsusho Corporation, Japan
- Manunggal Multi Energi - Indonesia
- Merrill Lynch Commodities Europe
- AsiaOL BioFuels Corp., Philippines
- Asmin Koalindo Tuhup - Indonesia
- PNOC Exploration Corporation - Philippines
- Salva Resources Pvt Ltd - India
- Baramulti Group, Indonesia
- Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand
- Global Coal Blending Company Limited - Australia
- Indian Oil Corporation Limited
- Barasentosa Lestari - Indonesia
- Georgia Ports Authority, United States
- Bahari Cakrawala Sebuku - Indonesia
- Jindal Steel & Power Ltd - India
- Essar Steel Hazira Ltd - India
- Bukit Baiduri Energy - Indonesia
- Therma Luzon, Inc, Philippines
- Singapore Mercantile Exchange
- Aboitiz Power Corporation - Philippines
- Vizag Seaport Private Limited - India
- Star Paper Mills Limited - India
- Straits Asia Resources Limited - Singapore
- Ind-Barath Power Infra Limited - India
- Indika Energy - Indonesia
- Kideco Jaya Agung - Indonesia
- Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd - Australia
- Billiton Holdings Pty Ltd - Australia
- San Jose City I Power Corp, Philippines
- Borneo Indobara - Indonesia
- Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd, - India
- MS Steel International - UAE
- Sojitz Corporation - Japan
- GMR Energy Limited - India
- Karbindo Abesyapradhi - Indoneisa
- Bulk Trading Sa - Switzerland
- CNBM International Corporation - China
- London Commodity Brokers - England
- Larsen & Toubro Limited - India
- Central Java Power - Indonesia
- Sree Jayajothi Cements Limited - India
- Karaikal Port Pvt Ltd - India
- The State Trading Corporation of India Ltd
- White Energy Company Limited
- Formosa Plastics Group - Taiwan
- Australian Coal Association
- Romanian Commodities Exchange
- The Treasury - Australian Government
- SN Aboitiz Power Inc, Philippines
- Global Business Power Corporation, Philippines
- Miang Besar Coal Terminal - Indonesia
- Siam City Cement - Thailand
- Kartika Selabumi Mining - Indonesia
- Commonwealth Bank - Australia
- IHS Mccloskey Coal Group - USA
- Bank of Tokyo Mitsubishi UFJ Ltd
- Australian Commodity Traders Exchange
- PetroVietnam Power Coal Import and Supply Company
- Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited - India
- Maheswari Brothers Coal Limited - India
- Siam City Cement PLC, Thailand
- Cement Manufacturers Association - India
- Mercuria Energy - Indonesia
- Kapuas Tunggal Persada - Indonesia
- Tamil Nadu electricity Board
- Sical Logistics Limited - India
- Dr Ramakrishna Prasad Power Pvt Ltd - India
- The University of Queensland
- Jorong Barutama Greston.PT - Indonesia
- Directorate General of MIneral and Coal - Indonesia
- McConnell Dowell - Australia
- Medco Energi Mining Internasional
- European Bulk Services B.V. - Netherlands
- Indonesian Coal Mining Association
- Savvy Resources Ltd - HongKong
- GAC Shipping (India) Pvt Ltd
- Gujarat Sidhee Cement - India
- New Zealand Coal & Carbon
- Holcim Trading Pte Ltd - Singapore
- Latin American Coal - Colombia
- Thai Mozambique Logistica
- Riau Bara Harum - Indonesia
- Anglo American - United Kingdom
- PowerSource Philippines DevCo
- Bangladesh Power Developement Board
- Rio Tinto Coal - Australia
- Orica Mining Services - Indonesia
- Africa Commodities Group - South Africa
- ASAPP Information Group - India
- Coalindo Energy - Indonesia
- Meralco Power Generation, Philippines
- Meenaskhi Energy Private Limited - India
- Attock Cement Pakistan Limited
- Bhatia International Limited - India
- Mjunction Services Limited - India
- Mintek Dendrill Indonesia
- Bayan Resources Tbk. - Indonesia
- Alfred C Toepfer International GmbH - Germany
- TeaM Sual Corporation - Philippines
- Coal and Oil Company - UAE
- Deloitte Consulting - India
- Iligan Light & Power Inc, Philippines
- Sarangani Energy Corporation, Philippines
- Standard Chartered Bank - UAE
- Global Green Power PLC Corporation, Philippines
- Sinarmas Energy and Mining - Indonesia
- Vedanta Resources Plc - India
- Kepco SPC Power Corporation, Philippines
- Bhushan Steel Limited - India
- Edison Trading Spa - Italy
- Krishnapatnam Port Company Ltd. - India
- LBH Netherlands Bv - Netherlands
- Minerals Council of Australia
- Wood Mackenzie - Singapore
- Semirara Mining and Power Corporation, Philippines
- Aditya Birla Group - India
- Petrochimia International Co. Ltd.- Taiwan
- Renaissance Capital - South Africa
- Chettinad Cement Corporation Ltd - India
- VISA Power Limited - India
- Price Waterhouse Coopers - Russia
- Agrawal Coal Company - India
- Grasim Industreis Ltd - India
- Petron Corporation, Philippines
- Dalmia Cement Bharat India
- Eastern Coal Council - USA
- Orica Australia Pty. Ltd.
- Kalimantan Lumbung Energi - Indonesia
- Independent Power Producers Association of India
- Videocon Industries ltd - India
- Sakthi Sugars Limited - India
- Kohat Cement Company Ltd. - Pakistan
- Trasteel International SA, Italy
- Binh Thuan Hamico - Vietnam
- Asia Pacific Energy Resources Ventures Inc, Philippines
- Eastern Energy - Thailand
- Filglen & Citicon Mining (HK) Ltd - Hong Kong
- Banpu Public Company Limited - Thailand
- ICICI Bank Limited - India
- Carbofer General Trading SA - India
- Thiess Contractors Indonesia
- CIMB Investment Bank - Malaysia
- Vijayanagar Sugar Pvt Ltd - India
- Ambuja Cements Ltd - India
- Ministry of Mines - Canada
- Uttam Galva Steels Limited - India
- Oldendorff Carriers - Singapore
- GN Power Mariveles Coal Plant, Philippines
- Interocean Group of Companies - India
- Indian Energy Exchange, India
- Economic Council, Georgia
- Metalloyd Limited - United Kingdom
- Xindia Steels Limited - India
- Electricity Authority, New Zealand
- Indo Tambangraya Megah - Indonesia
- Goldman Sachs - Singapore
- Port Waratah Coal Services - Australia
- Bukit Makmur.PT - Indonesia
- Heidelberg Cement - Germany
- Malabar Cements Ltd - India
- Pendopo Energi Batubara - Indonesia
- PTC India Limited - India
- Timah Investasi Mineral - Indoneisa
- Ceylon Electricity Board - Sri Lanka
- Sindya Power Generating Company Private Ltd
- Coastal Gujarat Power Limited - India
- SMG Consultants - Indonesia
- Pipit Mutiara Jaya. PT, Indonesia
- Bukit Asam (Persero) Tbk - Indonesia
- Indogreen Group - Indonesia
- Planning Commission, India
- Chamber of Mines of South Africa
- Dong Bac Coal Mineral Investment Coporation - Vietnam
- Kaltim Prima Coal - Indonesia
- Gujarat Mineral Development Corp Ltd - India
- GVK Power & Infra Limited - India
- India Bulls Power Limited - India
- Lanco Infratech Ltd - India
- Kumho Petrochemical, South Korea
- Bharathi Cement Corporation - India
- South Luzon Thermal Energy Corporation
- Offshore Bulk Terminal Pte Ltd, Singapore
- Cigading International Bulk Terminal - Indonesia
- Kobexindo Tractors - Indoneisa
- Samtan Co., Ltd - South Korea
- Intertek Mineral Services - Indonesia
- Mercator Lines Limited - India
- International Coal Ventures Pvt Ltd - India
- Ministry of Finance - Indonesia
- Madhucon Powers Ltd - India
- Ministry of Transport, Egypt
- Energy Link Ltd, New Zealand
- TNB Fuel Sdn Bhd - Malaysia
- OPG Power Generation Pvt Ltd - India
- Makarim & Taira - Indonesia
- SMC Global Power, Philippines
- Power Finance Corporation Ltd., India
|
| |
| |
|
