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, 07 July 14
SOUTH AFRICA'S RICHARDS BAY COAL TERMINAL SHIPPED 12% LESS COAL IN JUNE COMPARED TO MAY EXPORTS
COALspot.com: South Africa's Richards Bay Coal Terminal (RBCT) the world’s single largest export coal terminal, shipped 4.91 million tons ...
Monday, 07 July 14
INDONESIAN SUB-BIT COAL SWAPS FOR Q3 DELIVERY CRASHES THROUGH $ 54.50
COALspot.com: Indonesian coal swaps for average Q3’ 2014 lost on day, week and on month according to AsiaClear OTC coal swap's reports re ...
Monday, 07 July 14
API 8 CFR SOUTH CHINA COAL SWAPS SHOW A DOWNWARD TREND THIS PAST WEEK
COALspot.com: API 8 CFR South China Coal swap for delivery in Q3 drops US$ 5.47 month on month on Friday, dipping under $68 a ton. The CFR South Ch ...
Sunday, 06 July 14
PANAMAX INDEX BEING THE BIGGEST GAINER THIS WEEK; UP 52.75% W-O-W
COALspot.com: This week there was some positive signs in all the sectors. The Panamax index being the biggest gainer this week after losing for sev ...
Friday, 04 July 14
US: WEEKLY COAL PRODUCTION SLIGHTLY UP W-O-W
COALspot.com – United States the world's second largest coal producer, produced approximately 19.4 million short tons (mmst) of coa ...
|
|
|
Showing 3621 to 3625 news of total 6871 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
 |
|
|
| |
|
- PetroVietnam Power Coal Import and Supply Company
- Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission - India
- Global Coal Blending Company Limited - Australia
- Makarim & Taira - Indonesia
- Karaikal Port Pvt Ltd - India
- Africa Commodities Group - South Africa
- Kalimantan Lumbung Energi - Indonesia
- Dalmia Cement Bharat India
- VISA Power Limited - India
- London Commodity Brokers - England
- Thai Mozambique Logistica
- CNBM International Corporation - China
- McConnell Dowell - Australia
- Sindya Power Generating Company Private Ltd
- Aboitiz Power Corporation - Philippines
- Ceylon Electricity Board - Sri Lanka
- Kaltim Prima Coal - Indonesia
- Mercuria Energy - Indonesia
- Indogreen Group - Indonesia
- MS Steel International - UAE
- Coalindo Energy - Indonesia
- Bahari Cakrawala Sebuku - Indonesia
- Sinarmas Energy and Mining - Indonesia
- Kohat Cement Company Ltd. - Pakistan
- Sical Logistics Limited - India
- Krishnapatnam Port Company Ltd. - India
- Indian Oil Corporation Limited
- Bangladesh Power Developement Board
- Merrill Lynch Commodities Europe
- Tata Chemicals Ltd - India
- Alfred C Toepfer International GmbH - Germany
- TNB Fuel Sdn Bhd - Malaysia
- European Bulk Services B.V. - Netherlands
- OPG Power Generation Pvt Ltd - India
- Aditya Birla Group - India
- Anglo American - United Kingdom
- Ind-Barath Power Infra Limited - India
- Xindia Steels Limited - India
- Ministry of Finance - Indonesia
- Cement Manufacturers Association - India
- Pipit Mutiara Jaya. PT, Indonesia
- Intertek Mineral Services - Indonesia
- Ministry of Mines - Canada
- Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd - Australia
- Wood Mackenzie - Singapore
- Orica Mining Services - Indonesia
- Mjunction Services Limited - India
- Orica Australia Pty. Ltd.
- Bulk Trading Sa - Switzerland
- The University of Queensland
- Rio Tinto Coal - Australia
- Kapuas Tunggal Persada - Indonesia
- GMR Energy Limited - India
- Port Waratah Coal Services - Australia
- Price Waterhouse Coopers - Russia
- Directorate Of Revenue Intelligence - India
- AsiaOL BioFuels Corp., Philippines
- Antam Resourcindo - Indonesia
- Australian Commodity Traders Exchange
- Georgia Ports Authority, United States
- Siam City Cement - Thailand
- SMC Global Power, Philippines
- Petrochimia International Co. Ltd.- Taiwan
- Meralco Power Generation, Philippines
- Meenaskhi Energy Private Limited - India
- Billiton Holdings Pty Ltd - Australia
- Australian Coal Association
- Jindal Steel & Power Ltd - India
- Karbindo Abesyapradhi - Indoneisa
- Gujarat Mineral Development Corp Ltd - India
- Larsen & Toubro Limited - India
- Global Green Power PLC Corporation, Philippines
- Parliament of New Zealand
- Sarangani Energy Corporation, Philippines
- Power Finance Corporation Ltd., India
- Mercator Lines Limited - India
- Kepco SPC Power Corporation, Philippines
- Formosa Plastics Group - Taiwan
- Altura Mining Limited, Indonesia
- Samtan Co., Ltd - South Korea
- Kobexindo Tractors - Indoneisa
- Coal and Oil Company - UAE
- Central Electricity Authority - India
- SN Aboitiz Power Inc, Philippines
- Miang Besar Coal Terminal - Indonesia
- Cigading International Bulk Terminal - Indonesia
- Uttam Galva Steels Limited - India
- Goldman Sachs - Singapore
- Renaissance Capital - South Africa
- Marubeni Corporation - India
- Singapore Mercantile Exchange
- The State Trading Corporation of India Ltd
- Parry Sugars Refinery, India
- Vijayanagar Sugar Pvt Ltd - India
- GAC Shipping (India) Pvt Ltd
- Interocean Group of Companies - India
- Standard Chartered Bank - UAE
- PTC India Limited - India
- Binh Thuan Hamico - Vietnam
- Bhoruka Overseas - Indonesia
- Holcim Trading Pte Ltd - Singapore
- Asmin Koalindo Tuhup - Indonesia
- Energy Link Ltd, New Zealand
- Sree Jayajothi Cements Limited - India
- Independent Power Producers Association of India
- Oldendorff Carriers - Singapore
- Edison Trading Spa - Italy
- Dong Bac Coal Mineral Investment Coporation - Vietnam
- Heidelberg Cement - Germany
- Deloitte Consulting - India
- Central Java Power - Indonesia
- Economic Council, Georgia
- Indian Energy Exchange, India
- Global Business Power Corporation, Philippines
- Agrawal Coal Company - India
- Banpu Public Company Limited - Thailand
- Dr Ramakrishna Prasad Power Pvt Ltd - India
- Jorong Barutama Greston.PT - Indonesia
- Simpson Spence & Young - Indonesia
- Coastal Gujarat Power Limited - India
- Eastern Coal Council - USA
- The Treasury - Australian Government
- International Coal Ventures Pvt Ltd - India
- Indonesian Coal Mining Association
- Vedanta Resources Plc - India
- Wilmar Investment Holdings
- Pendopo Energi Batubara - Indonesia
- Directorate General of MIneral and Coal - Indonesia
- Metalloyd Limited - United Kingdom
- Star Paper Mills Limited - India
- LBH Netherlands Bv - Netherlands
- PNOC Exploration Corporation - Philippines
- Essar Steel Hazira Ltd - India
- PowerSource Philippines DevCo
- Therma Luzon, Inc, Philippines
- White Energy Company Limited
- Energy Development Corp, Philippines
- Jaiprakash Power Ventures ltd
- Madhucon Powers Ltd - India
- Iligan Light & Power Inc, Philippines
- Bharathi Cement Corporation - India
- IEA Clean Coal Centre - UK
- Ministry of Transport, Egypt
- Kartika Selabumi Mining - Indonesia
- Petron Corporation, Philippines
- South Luzon Thermal Energy Corporation
- Bukit Baiduri Energy - Indonesia
- Toyota Tsusho Corporation, Japan
- Lanco Infratech Ltd - India
- Kideco Jaya Agung - Indonesia
- Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand
- Baramulti Group, Indonesia
- Timah Investasi Mineral - Indoneisa
- Bukit Makmur.PT - Indonesia
- ASAPP Information Group - India
- Savvy Resources Ltd - HongKong
- Maheswari Brothers Coal Limited - India
- ICICI Bank Limited - India
- Straits Asia Resources Limited - Singapore
- Barasentosa Lestari - Indonesia
- SMG Consultants - Indonesia
- Bukit Asam (Persero) Tbk - Indonesia
- New Zealand Coal & Carbon
- Vizag Seaport Private Limited - India
- Attock Cement Pakistan Limited
- Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited - India
- Kumho Petrochemical, South Korea
- Filglen & Citicon Mining (HK) Ltd - Hong Kong
- Posco Energy - South Korea
- Salva Resources Pvt Ltd - India
- Videocon Industries ltd - India
- Chettinad Cement Corporation Ltd - India
- Borneo Indobara - Indonesia
- Electricity Authority, New Zealand
- Offshore Bulk Terminal Pte Ltd, Singapore
- Malabar Cements Ltd - India
- Asia Pacific Energy Resources Ventures Inc, Philippines
- Bank of Tokyo Mitsubishi UFJ Ltd
- Thiess Contractors Indonesia
- Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd, - India
- GN Power Mariveles Coal Plant, Philippines
- Bhushan Steel Limited - India
- Romanian Commodities Exchange
- Tamil Nadu electricity Board
- CIMB Investment Bank - Malaysia
- TeaM Sual Corporation - Philippines
- Manunggal Multi Energi - Indonesia
- Indika Energy - Indonesia
- Commonwealth Bank - Australia
- Truba Alam Manunggal Engineering.Tbk - Indonesia
- Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission - India
- Eastern Energy - Thailand
- Planning Commission, India
- Semirara Mining and Power Corporation, Philippines
- Mintek Dendrill Indonesia
- Bhatia International Limited - India
- Globalindo Alam Lestari - Indonesia
- Riau Bara Harum - Indonesia
- San Jose City I Power Corp, Philippines
- Trasteel International SA, Italy
- Latin American Coal - Colombia
- India Bulls Power Limited - India
- Grasim Industreis Ltd - India
- Ambuja Cements Ltd - India
- Semirara Mining Corp, Philippines
- Indo Tambangraya Megah - Indonesia
- Carbofer General Trading SA - India
- Bayan Resources Tbk. - Indonesia
- Sojitz Corporation - Japan
- Chamber of Mines of South Africa
- Medco Energi Mining Internasional
- GVK Power & Infra Limited - India
- Gujarat Sidhee Cement - India
- Minerals Council of Australia
- Siam City Cement PLC, Thailand
- IHS Mccloskey Coal Group - USA
- Sakthi Sugars Limited - India
|
| |
| |
|
