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, 23 June 14
COAL SWAPS DROPS FURTHER MONTH ON MONTH ON WEAK DEMAND
COALspot.com: API 8 CFR South China Coal swaps for average Q3 14 deliveries lost 6.91 percent month on month and closed at US$ 69.00 per mt a ...
Sunday, 22 June 14
THE PANAMAX COAL FREIGHT FROM INDONESIA TO INDIA SLIPPED THIS WEEK
COALspot.com: The Baltic Exchange's main sea freight index, which tracks rates for ships carrying dry bulk commodities, fell slightly on Friday ...
Friday, 20 June 14
DRY BULK MARKET LOOKING FOR UPSIDE ON ROBUST SEABORNE IRON ORE TRADE - NIKOS ROUSSANOGLOU, HELLENIC SHIPPING NEWS
The dry bulk market hasn’t been able to justify the heightened expectations this year. Yesterday, the Baltic Dry Index managed to inch forwar ...
Friday, 20 June 14
US WEEKLY COAL PRODUCTION DROPS 1.8% WEEK ON WEEK
COALspot.com – United States the world's second largest coal producer, produced approximately 18.3 million short tons (mmst) of coal in a ...
Thursday, 19 June 14
PANAMAX: VERY CLOSE TO BREAKING THE ALL TIME LOW RECORD - FEARNLEYS AS
Handy
The Supra-Handy market is experiencing the same market slow down as its bigger sister markets however not to the same extent. We see TA rat ...
|
|
|
Showing 3646 to 3650 news of total 6871 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
 |
|
|
| |
|
- SMG Consultants - Indonesia
- Indika Energy - Indonesia
- Kaltim Prima Coal - Indonesia
- Binh Thuan Hamico - Vietnam
- Bukit Makmur.PT - Indonesia
- Cigading International Bulk Terminal - Indonesia
- Semirara Mining Corp, Philippines
- Sarangani Energy Corporation, Philippines
- Dr Ramakrishna Prasad Power Pvt Ltd - India
- VISA Power Limited - India
- Bukit Asam (Persero) Tbk - Indonesia
- Billiton Holdings Pty Ltd - Australia
- Renaissance Capital - South Africa
- Malabar Cements Ltd - India
- MS Steel International - UAE
- Eastern Coal Council - USA
- Cement Manufacturers Association - India
- Coal and Oil Company - UAE
- European Bulk Services B.V. - Netherlands
- Electricity Authority, New Zealand
- Meralco Power Generation, Philippines
- Thiess Contractors Indonesia
- Bahari Cakrawala Sebuku - Indonesia
- PNOC Exploration Corporation - Philippines
- Ministry of Transport, Egypt
- Coastal Gujarat Power Limited - India
- Eastern Energy - Thailand
- Vijayanagar Sugar Pvt Ltd - India
- Intertek Mineral Services - Indonesia
- GAC Shipping (India) Pvt Ltd
- Ind-Barath Power Infra Limited - India
- Deloitte Consulting - India
- Borneo Indobara - Indonesia
- Interocean Group of Companies - India
- PetroVietnam Power Coal Import and Supply Company
- Minerals Council of Australia
- Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited - India
- International Coal Ventures Pvt Ltd - India
- TeaM Sual Corporation - Philippines
- Price Waterhouse Coopers - Russia
- Parliament of New Zealand
- Petron Corporation, Philippines
- Makarim & Taira - Indonesia
- Vizag Seaport Private Limited - India
- Power Finance Corporation Ltd., India
- Vedanta Resources Plc - India
- Ambuja Cements Ltd - India
- Latin American Coal - Colombia
- Ministry of Finance - Indonesia
- Jaiprakash Power Ventures ltd
- SMC Global Power, Philippines
- Global Business Power Corporation, Philippines
- New Zealand Coal & Carbon
- Marubeni Corporation - India
- Trasteel International SA, Italy
- Globalindo Alam Lestari - Indonesia
- Chamber of Mines of South Africa
- Posco Energy - South Korea
- Orica Mining Services - Indonesia
- Kepco SPC Power Corporation, Philippines
- Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission - India
- Directorate General of MIneral and Coal - Indonesia
- Directorate Of Revenue Intelligence - India
- Bayan Resources Tbk. - Indonesia
- Miang Besar Coal Terminal - Indonesia
- Jindal Steel & Power Ltd - India
- Thai Mozambique Logistica
- Port Waratah Coal Services - Australia
- GMR Energy Limited - India
- Central Java Power - Indonesia
- Bukit Baiduri Energy - Indonesia
- Videocon Industries ltd - India
- Energy Development Corp, Philippines
- Kohat Cement Company Ltd. - Pakistan
- Anglo American - United Kingdom
- Therma Luzon, Inc, Philippines
- Bank of Tokyo Mitsubishi UFJ Ltd
- Edison Trading Spa - Italy
- Simpson Spence & Young - Indonesia
- Wilmar Investment Holdings
- Tamil Nadu electricity Board
- Carbofer General Trading SA - India
- CIMB Investment Bank - Malaysia
- Africa Commodities Group - South Africa
- Indian Oil Corporation Limited
- Independent Power Producers Association of India
- Oldendorff Carriers - Singapore
- Kalimantan Lumbung Energi - Indonesia
- Planning Commission, India
- Heidelberg Cement - Germany
- Mjunction Services Limited - India
- Orica Australia Pty. Ltd.
- Bhoruka Overseas - Indonesia
- Aditya Birla Group - India
- Banpu Public Company Limited - Thailand
- India Bulls Power Limited - India
- Holcim Trading Pte Ltd - Singapore
- TNB Fuel Sdn Bhd - Malaysia
- Bhatia International Limited - India
- Formosa Plastics Group - Taiwan
- Economic Council, Georgia
- ASAPP Information Group - India
- LBH Netherlands Bv - Netherlands
- Offshore Bulk Terminal Pte Ltd, Singapore
- Dong Bac Coal Mineral Investment Coporation - Vietnam
- Pendopo Energi Batubara - Indonesia
- Asmin Koalindo Tuhup - Indonesia
- McConnell Dowell - Australia
- Bulk Trading Sa - Switzerland
- Medco Energi Mining Internasional
- Larsen & Toubro Limited - India
- Karaikal Port Pvt Ltd - India
- Grasim Industreis Ltd - India
- IEA Clean Coal Centre - UK
- South Luzon Thermal Energy Corporation
- Kideco Jaya Agung - Indonesia
- Australian Coal Association
- Central Electricity Authority - India
- Truba Alam Manunggal Engineering.Tbk - Indonesia
- Commonwealth Bank - Australia
- Coalindo Energy - Indonesia
- Madhucon Powers Ltd - India
- Kumho Petrochemical, South Korea
- Salva Resources Pvt Ltd - India
- Gujarat Sidhee Cement - India
- Global Coal Blending Company Limited - Australia
- Samtan Co., Ltd - South Korea
- Uttam Galva Steels Limited - India
- ICICI Bank Limited - India
- Bangladesh Power Developement Board
- London Commodity Brokers - England
- White Energy Company Limited
- Wood Mackenzie - Singapore
- Sical Logistics Limited - India
- Indian Energy Exchange, India
- Semirara Mining and Power Corporation, Philippines
- Siam City Cement PLC, Thailand
- Gujarat Mineral Development Corp Ltd - India
- Metalloyd Limited - United Kingdom
- Kobexindo Tractors - Indoneisa
- Krishnapatnam Port Company Ltd. - India
- Ceylon Electricity Board - Sri Lanka
- Mercator Lines Limited - India
- Lanco Infratech Ltd - India
- Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd, - India
- AsiaOL BioFuels Corp., Philippines
- Agrawal Coal Company - India
- Singapore Mercantile Exchange
- Meenaskhi Energy Private Limited - India
- Karbindo Abesyapradhi - Indoneisa
- The Treasury - Australian Government
- Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission - India
- Mintek Dendrill Indonesia
- Global Green Power PLC Corporation, Philippines
- Altura Mining Limited, Indonesia
- Barasentosa Lestari - Indonesia
- OPG Power Generation Pvt Ltd - India
- Australian Commodity Traders Exchange
- The University of Queensland
- Sakthi Sugars Limited - India
- Jorong Barutama Greston.PT - Indonesia
- Romanian Commodities Exchange
- Alfred C Toepfer International GmbH - Germany
- Standard Chartered Bank - UAE
- Savvy Resources Ltd - HongKong
- Toyota Tsusho Corporation, Japan
- Bhushan Steel Limited - India
- Georgia Ports Authority, United States
- Timah Investasi Mineral - Indoneisa
- San Jose City I Power Corp, Philippines
- Straits Asia Resources Limited - Singapore
- IHS Mccloskey Coal Group - USA
- Mercuria Energy - Indonesia
- Xindia Steels Limited - India
- Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd - Australia
- Energy Link Ltd, New Zealand
- Star Paper Mills Limited - India
- Manunggal Multi Energi - Indonesia
- Riau Bara Harum - Indonesia
- Attock Cement Pakistan Limited
- GVK Power & Infra Limited - India
- GN Power Mariveles Coal Plant, Philippines
- Sindya Power Generating Company Private Ltd
- Pipit Mutiara Jaya. PT, Indonesia
- Petrochimia International Co. Ltd.- Taiwan
- Dalmia Cement Bharat India
- Sree Jayajothi Cements Limited - India
- Essar Steel Hazira Ltd - India
- Baramulti Group, Indonesia
- Iligan Light & Power Inc, Philippines
- Antam Resourcindo - Indonesia
- Rio Tinto Coal - Australia
- Siam City Cement - Thailand
- PowerSource Philippines DevCo
- Indo Tambangraya Megah - Indonesia
- Bharathi Cement Corporation - India
- Indonesian Coal Mining Association
- Kapuas Tunggal Persada - Indonesia
- CNBM International Corporation - China
- Chettinad Cement Corporation Ltd - India
- Merrill Lynch Commodities Europe
- The State Trading Corporation of India Ltd
- Kartika Selabumi Mining - Indonesia
- Tata Chemicals Ltd - India
- Sinarmas Energy and Mining - Indonesia
- PTC India Limited - India
- Aboitiz Power Corporation - Philippines
- Filglen & Citicon Mining (HK) Ltd - Hong Kong
- Indogreen Group - Indonesia
- Sojitz Corporation - Japan
- Parry Sugars Refinery, India
- Maheswari Brothers Coal Limited - India
- Asia Pacific Energy Resources Ventures Inc, Philippines
- SN Aboitiz Power Inc, Philippines
- Goldman Sachs - Singapore
- Ministry of Mines - Canada
- Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand
|
| |
| |
|
