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, 02 July 14
HANDY BULKERS PROVE TO BE THE MOST SOUGHT AFTER VESSELS OVER THE PAST WEEK - NIKOS ROUSSANOGLOU, HELLENIC SHIPPING NEWS
The Handy dry bulker proved to be the most sought after ship by ship owners active in the second hand market, which saw a slight decline in terms o ...
Wednesday, 02 July 14
SHIPPING: MARKET INSIGHT - GEORGE DERMATIS
After 6 months, 57 ministerial meetings and 67 political agreements, the journey of the Greek Presidency in the EU reached its end yesterday; only ...
Tuesday, 01 July 14
INDIAN POWER PLANT COAL STOCKPILES VERY LOW
COALspot.com: According to today's Weekly Dry Bulk Report published by Commodore Research, Indian power plant coal stockpiles have now fallen t ...
Monday, 30 June 14
SUB-BIT FOB INDONESIA COAL PRICES ARE STILL STRUGGLING TO RECOVER
COALspot.com: Indonesian coal swaps for average Q3’ 2014 lost on week and on month according to AsiaClear OTC coal swap's reports release ...
Monday, 30 June 14
WEEKLY CFR SOUTH CHINA COAL SWAPS DECLINE CONTINUES; Q1'15 LOST US$ 4.55 PMT IN A WEEK
COALspot.com: API 8 CFR South China Coal swap for delivery in Q3 fell US$ 5.25 month on month on Friday, dipping under $69 a tone. The CFR South Ch ...
|
|
|
Showing 3631 to 3635 news of total 6871 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
 |
|
|
| |
|
- Billiton Holdings Pty Ltd - Australia
- Grasim Industreis Ltd - India
- Meralco Power Generation, Philippines
- PowerSource Philippines DevCo
- Bank of Tokyo Mitsubishi UFJ Ltd
- Bukit Asam (Persero) Tbk - Indonesia
- Tamil Nadu electricity Board
- Posco Energy - South Korea
- IHS Mccloskey Coal Group - USA
- European Bulk Services B.V. - Netherlands
- Electricity Authority, New Zealand
- The Treasury - Australian Government
- Economic Council, Georgia
- Simpson Spence & Young - Indonesia
- Krishnapatnam Port Company Ltd. - India
- Borneo Indobara - Indonesia
- MS Steel International - UAE
- New Zealand Coal & Carbon
- Antam Resourcindo - Indonesia
- AsiaOL BioFuels Corp., Philippines
- Bukit Makmur.PT - Indonesia
- Tata Chemicals Ltd - India
- Merrill Lynch Commodities Europe
- Coastal Gujarat Power Limited - India
- Trasteel International SA, Italy
- McConnell Dowell - Australia
- Gujarat Mineral Development Corp Ltd - India
- Star Paper Mills Limited - India
- Planning Commission, India
- Central Java Power - Indonesia
- Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand
- Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd, - India
- SMC Global Power, Philippines
- Samtan Co., Ltd - South Korea
- Offshore Bulk Terminal Pte Ltd, Singapore
- Sakthi Sugars Limited - India
- Filglen & Citicon Mining (HK) Ltd - Hong Kong
- ICICI Bank Limited - India
- Interocean Group of Companies - India
- Baramulti Group, Indonesia
- Kumho Petrochemical, South Korea
- Bayan Resources Tbk. - Indonesia
- PTC India Limited - India
- Karaikal Port Pvt Ltd - India
- Indo Tambangraya Megah - Indonesia
- Karbindo Abesyapradhi - Indoneisa
- Petrochimia International Co. Ltd.- Taiwan
- Kohat Cement Company Ltd. - Pakistan
- Kalimantan Lumbung Energi - Indonesia
- Maheswari Brothers Coal Limited - India
- Binh Thuan Hamico - Vietnam
- Attock Cement Pakistan Limited
- Bhushan Steel Limited - India
- Sarangani Energy Corporation, Philippines
- Indian Energy Exchange, India
- Port Waratah Coal Services - Australia
- Manunggal Multi Energi - Indonesia
- Lanco Infratech Ltd - India
- Indika Energy - Indonesia
- Kapuas Tunggal Persada - Indonesia
- Bahari Cakrawala Sebuku - Indonesia
- Independent Power Producers Association of India
- Indonesian Coal Mining Association
- Barasentosa Lestari - Indonesia
- Minerals Council of Australia
- Thiess Contractors Indonesia
- Georgia Ports Authority, United States
- Metalloyd Limited - United Kingdom
- GMR Energy Limited - India
- VISA Power Limited - India
- Agrawal Coal Company - India
- Ministry of Mines - Canada
- Power Finance Corporation Ltd., India
- Riau Bara Harum - Indonesia
- Heidelberg Cement - Germany
- Dalmia Cement Bharat India
- Madhucon Powers Ltd - India
- Xindia Steels Limited - India
- Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited - India
- Wilmar Investment Holdings
- PetroVietnam Power Coal Import and Supply Company
- Kaltim Prima Coal - Indonesia
- Asmin Koalindo Tuhup - Indonesia
- Thai Mozambique Logistica
- Edison Trading Spa - Italy
- Holcim Trading Pte Ltd - Singapore
- Directorate General of MIneral and Coal - Indonesia
- Kartika Selabumi Mining - Indonesia
- Banpu Public Company Limited - Thailand
- Kepco SPC Power Corporation, Philippines
- Intertek Mineral Services - Indonesia
- Mjunction Services Limited - India
- Renaissance Capital - South Africa
- Jaiprakash Power Ventures ltd
- Aditya Birla Group - India
- Iligan Light & Power Inc, Philippines
- Orica Australia Pty. Ltd.
- Coal and Oil Company - UAE
- Mercator Lines Limited - India
- Makarim & Taira - Indonesia
- CIMB Investment Bank - Malaysia
- CNBM International Corporation - China
- Rio Tinto Coal - Australia
- Petron Corporation, Philippines
- Pipit Mutiara Jaya. PT, Indonesia
- Salva Resources Pvt Ltd - India
- Mercuria Energy - Indonesia
- Directorate Of Revenue Intelligence - India
- Anglo American - United Kingdom
- Kobexindo Tractors - Indoneisa
- PNOC Exploration Corporation - Philippines
- Chettinad Cement Corporation Ltd - India
- Sojitz Corporation - Japan
- South Luzon Thermal Energy Corporation
- Gujarat Sidhee Cement - India
- Semirara Mining and Power Corporation, Philippines
- Carbofer General Trading SA - India
- Vijayanagar Sugar Pvt Ltd - India
- LBH Netherlands Bv - Netherlands
- The State Trading Corporation of India Ltd
- Alfred C Toepfer International GmbH - Germany
- Deloitte Consulting - India
- Romanian Commodities Exchange
- SMG Consultants - Indonesia
- Uttam Galva Steels Limited - India
- White Energy Company Limited
- Sindya Power Generating Company Private Ltd
- Semirara Mining Corp, Philippines
- Jindal Steel & Power Ltd - India
- Videocon Industries ltd - India
- Central Electricity Authority - India
- Sical Logistics Limited - India
- Commonwealth Bank - Australia
- International Coal Ventures Pvt Ltd - India
- Energy Development Corp, Philippines
- Medco Energi Mining Internasional
- Australian Coal Association
- Energy Link Ltd, New Zealand
- Truba Alam Manunggal Engineering.Tbk - Indonesia
- GVK Power & Infra Limited - India
- Siam City Cement - Thailand
- London Commodity Brokers - England
- GAC Shipping (India) Pvt Ltd
- Asia Pacific Energy Resources Ventures Inc, Philippines
- Goldman Sachs - Singapore
- Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd - Australia
- Malabar Cements Ltd - India
- Globalindo Alam Lestari - Indonesia
- Siam City Cement PLC, Thailand
- Larsen & Toubro Limited - India
- Ministry of Finance - Indonesia
- Bangladesh Power Developement Board
- Parry Sugars Refinery, India
- Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission - India
- Ministry of Transport, Egypt
- Meenaskhi Energy Private Limited - India
- Chamber of Mines of South Africa
- Aboitiz Power Corporation - Philippines
- Jorong Barutama Greston.PT - Indonesia
- Orica Mining Services - Indonesia
- Bhoruka Overseas - Indonesia
- Oldendorff Carriers - Singapore
- Therma Luzon, Inc, Philippines
- Straits Asia Resources Limited - Singapore
- Bulk Trading Sa - Switzerland
- Bukit Baiduri Energy - Indonesia
- SN Aboitiz Power Inc, Philippines
- Parliament of New Zealand
- TeaM Sual Corporation - Philippines
- Ind-Barath Power Infra Limited - India
- Cement Manufacturers Association - India
- GN Power Mariveles Coal Plant, Philippines
- Eastern Energy - Thailand
- Mintek Dendrill Indonesia
- Price Waterhouse Coopers - Russia
- Sinarmas Energy and Mining - Indonesia
- Cigading International Bulk Terminal - Indonesia
- Dr Ramakrishna Prasad Power Pvt Ltd - India
- Coalindo Energy - Indonesia
- Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission - India
- Dong Bac Coal Mineral Investment Coporation - Vietnam
- San Jose City I Power Corp, Philippines
- India Bulls Power Limited - India
- Indian Oil Corporation Limited
- Bharathi Cement Corporation - India
- ASAPP Information Group - India
- Toyota Tsusho Corporation, Japan
- Vedanta Resources Plc - India
- Formosa Plastics Group - Taiwan
- Bhatia International Limited - India
- Eastern Coal Council - USA
- Savvy Resources Ltd - HongKong
- Global Coal Blending Company Limited - Australia
- Sree Jayajothi Cements Limited - India
- Ceylon Electricity Board - Sri Lanka
- IEA Clean Coal Centre - UK
- Global Green Power PLC Corporation, Philippines
- Ambuja Cements Ltd - India
- Wood Mackenzie - Singapore
- The University of Queensland
- TNB Fuel Sdn Bhd - Malaysia
- Latin American Coal - Colombia
- Standard Chartered Bank - UAE
- Altura Mining Limited, Indonesia
- Kideco Jaya Agung - Indonesia
- Africa Commodities Group - South Africa
- OPG Power Generation Pvt Ltd - India
- Singapore Mercantile Exchange
- Marubeni Corporation - India
- Miang Besar Coal Terminal - Indonesia
- Timah Investasi Mineral - Indoneisa
- Pendopo Energi Batubara - Indonesia
- Indogreen Group - Indonesia
- Essar Steel Hazira Ltd - India
- Vizag Seaport Private Limited - India
- Australian Commodity Traders Exchange
- Global Business Power Corporation, Philippines
|
| |
| |
|
