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, 18 June 14
CHINESE STEEL PRODUCTION SETS RECORD DURING FIRST TEN DAYS OF JUNE - COMMODORE RESEARCH & CONSULTANCY
Recently released data shows that average daily crude steel production at China's key steel mills hit a record high of 1.833 million tons durin ...
Wednesday, 18 June 14
MARKET INSIGHT - TIMOS PAPADIMITRIOU
Back in January the expectations for Q3 and Q4 were more than great. Talks and claims for a rising BDI and a healthy market were coming from everyw ...
Tuesday, 17 June 14
DRY BULK FREIGHT RATES TO RISE DURING THE SECOND HALF OF 2014, AS CHINA IS EXPECTED TO START IMPORTING MORE IRON ORE FROM BRAZIL - NIKOS ROUSSANOGLOU, HELLENIC SHIPPING NEWS
In its latest analysis of the dry bulk market, BIMCO said that it doesn’t expect freight rates to react significantly to increased demand bef ...
Monday, 16 June 14
INDONESIAN COAL SWAPS FOR Q3 DELIVERY FALL 2.34 % MONTH ON MONTH
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, 16 June 14
API 8 CFR SOUTH CHINA COAL SWAPS FALL CONTINUES THIS PAST WEEK
COALspot.com: API 8 CFR South China Coal swaps for average Q3 14 deliveries lost 4.34 percent month on month and closed at US$ 71.05 per mt a ...
|
|
|
Showing 3651 to 3655 news of total 6871 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
 |
|
|
| |
|
- Malabar Cements Ltd - India
- ASAPP Information Group - India
- Bharathi Cement Corporation - India
- Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd - Australia
- Energy Development Corp, Philippines
- Kapuas Tunggal Persada - Indonesia
- Sarangani Energy Corporation, Philippines
- Standard Chartered Bank - UAE
- Vizag Seaport Private Limited - India
- Merrill Lynch Commodities Europe
- Krishnapatnam Port Company Ltd. - India
- Mercuria Energy - Indonesia
- Miang Besar Coal Terminal - Indonesia
- Bukit Baiduri Energy - Indonesia
- Dong Bac Coal Mineral Investment Coporation - Vietnam
- Jindal Steel & Power Ltd - India
- Semirara Mining Corp, Philippines
- The University of Queensland
- Formosa Plastics Group - Taiwan
- Ceylon Electricity Board - Sri Lanka
- McConnell Dowell - Australia
- Bhatia International Limited - India
- Truba Alam Manunggal Engineering.Tbk - Indonesia
- Kaltim Prima Coal - Indonesia
- Star Paper Mills Limited - India
- OPG Power Generation Pvt Ltd - India
- Lanco Infratech Ltd - India
- Banpu Public Company Limited - Thailand
- Romanian Commodities Exchange
- Eastern Energy - Thailand
- Parry Sugars Refinery, India
- Filglen & Citicon Mining (HK) Ltd - Hong Kong
- International Coal Ventures Pvt Ltd - India
- Directorate General of MIneral and Coal - Indonesia
- Indo Tambangraya Megah - Indonesia
- The State Trading Corporation of India Ltd
- Billiton Holdings Pty Ltd - Australia
- Latin American Coal - Colombia
- Thai Mozambique Logistica
- Asmin Koalindo Tuhup - Indonesia
- IEA Clean Coal Centre - UK
- VISA Power Limited - India
- Essar Steel Hazira Ltd - India
- Sinarmas Energy and Mining - Indonesia
- Medco Energi Mining Internasional
- Sree Jayajothi Cements Limited - India
- Global Green Power PLC Corporation, Philippines
- Riau Bara Harum - Indonesia
- Electricity Authority, New Zealand
- Tamil Nadu electricity Board
- Indonesian Coal Mining Association
- Marubeni Corporation - India
- MS Steel International - UAE
- Sical Logistics Limited - India
- Aboitiz Power Corporation - Philippines
- Bukit Makmur.PT - Indonesia
- TNB Fuel Sdn Bhd - Malaysia
- Salva Resources Pvt Ltd - India
- Offshore Bulk Terminal Pte Ltd, Singapore
- Energy Link Ltd, New Zealand
- Grasim Industreis Ltd - India
- Orica Mining Services - Indonesia
- Central Electricity Authority - India
- Africa Commodities Group - South Africa
- Savvy Resources Ltd - HongKong
- Bukit Asam (Persero) Tbk - Indonesia
- Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission - India
- Bulk Trading Sa - Switzerland
- Bayan Resources Tbk. - Indonesia
- Bhoruka Overseas - Indonesia
- Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand
- GMR Energy Limited - India
- Gujarat Mineral Development Corp Ltd - India
- AsiaOL BioFuels Corp., Philippines
- Indika Energy - Indonesia
- PTC India Limited - India
- Sojitz Corporation - Japan
- GAC Shipping (India) Pvt Ltd
- Straits Asia Resources Limited - Singapore
- Coastal Gujarat Power Limited - India
- Power Finance Corporation Ltd., India
- Dr Ramakrishna Prasad Power Pvt Ltd - India
- Borneo Indobara - Indonesia
- PowerSource Philippines DevCo
- Meenaskhi Energy Private Limited - India
- Renaissance Capital - South Africa
- Vijayanagar Sugar Pvt Ltd - India
- Jorong Barutama Greston.PT - Indonesia
- White Energy Company Limited
- Indian Oil Corporation Limited
- Siam City Cement PLC, Thailand
- Central Java Power - Indonesia
- Ministry of Mines - Canada
- Kartika Selabumi Mining - Indonesia
- Australian Commodity Traders Exchange
- Petrochimia International Co. Ltd.- Taiwan
- Mintek Dendrill Indonesia
- Samtan Co., Ltd - South Korea
- India Bulls Power Limited - India
- Karbindo Abesyapradhi - Indoneisa
- Bhushan Steel Limited - India
- Chettinad Cement Corporation Ltd - India
- Orica Australia Pty. Ltd.
- Carbofer General Trading SA - India
- Global Coal Blending Company Limited - Australia
- Kalimantan Lumbung Energi - Indonesia
- London Commodity Brokers - England
- Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd, - India
- GVK Power & Infra Limited - India
- Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission - India
- Edison Trading Spa - Italy
- CIMB Investment Bank - Malaysia
- Mjunction Services Limited - India
- Siam City Cement - Thailand
- Baramulti Group, Indonesia
- Minerals Council of Australia
- Barasentosa Lestari - Indonesia
- Altura Mining Limited, Indonesia
- Antam Resourcindo - Indonesia
- European Bulk Services B.V. - Netherlands
- LBH Netherlands Bv - Netherlands
- Bank of Tokyo Mitsubishi UFJ Ltd
- Meralco Power Generation, Philippines
- Posco Energy - South Korea
- Cigading International Bulk Terminal - Indonesia
- San Jose City I Power Corp, Philippines
- Planning Commission, India
- Pipit Mutiara Jaya. PT, Indonesia
- Larsen & Toubro Limited - India
- South Luzon Thermal Energy Corporation
- Aditya Birla Group - India
- Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited - India
- Trasteel International SA, Italy
- Binh Thuan Hamico - Vietnam
- Jaiprakash Power Ventures ltd
- Bangladesh Power Developement Board
- Price Waterhouse Coopers - Russia
- Petron Corporation, Philippines
- GN Power Mariveles Coal Plant, Philippines
- Kumho Petrochemical, South Korea
- Indogreen Group - Indonesia
- Kohat Cement Company Ltd. - Pakistan
- CNBM International Corporation - China
- Thiess Contractors Indonesia
- PNOC Exploration Corporation - Philippines
- Bahari Cakrawala Sebuku - Indonesia
- Oldendorff Carriers - Singapore
- Pendopo Energi Batubara - Indonesia
- Maheswari Brothers Coal Limited - India
- The Treasury - Australian Government
- Sakthi Sugars Limited - India
- Eastern Coal Council - USA
- Wood Mackenzie - Singapore
- TeaM Sual Corporation - Philippines
- Goldman Sachs - Singapore
- Sindya Power Generating Company Private Ltd
- Mercator Lines Limited - India
- Agrawal Coal Company - India
- Dalmia Cement Bharat India
- Simpson Spence & Young - Indonesia
- Anglo American - United Kingdom
- SMC Global Power, Philippines
- Kideco Jaya Agung - Indonesia
- New Zealand Coal & Carbon
- Heidelberg Cement - Germany
- Toyota Tsusho Corporation, Japan
- IHS Mccloskey Coal Group - USA
- Semirara Mining and Power Corporation, Philippines
- Metalloyd Limited - United Kingdom
- Coalindo Energy - Indonesia
- Indian Energy Exchange, India
- Ambuja Cements Ltd - India
- Kobexindo Tractors - Indoneisa
- SN Aboitiz Power Inc, Philippines
- Asia Pacific Energy Resources Ventures Inc, Philippines
- Attock Cement Pakistan Limited
- Holcim Trading Pte Ltd - Singapore
- Coal and Oil Company - UAE
- Xindia Steels Limited - India
- Iligan Light & Power Inc, Philippines
- Makarim & Taira - Indonesia
- Independent Power Producers Association of India
- Uttam Galva Steels Limited - India
- Madhucon Powers Ltd - India
- Parliament of New Zealand
- Timah Investasi Mineral - Indoneisa
- Gujarat Sidhee Cement - India
- Singapore Mercantile Exchange
- Georgia Ports Authority, United States
- Deloitte Consulting - India
- Interocean Group of Companies - India
- Chamber of Mines of South Africa
- Vedanta Resources Plc - India
- Commonwealth Bank - Australia
- Karaikal Port Pvt Ltd - India
- Ministry of Finance - Indonesia
- Manunggal Multi Energi - Indonesia
- SMG Consultants - Indonesia
- Alfred C Toepfer International GmbH - Germany
- Cement Manufacturers Association - India
- Port Waratah Coal Services - Australia
- Global Business Power Corporation, Philippines
- Ind-Barath Power Infra Limited - India
- PetroVietnam Power Coal Import and Supply Company
- Intertek Mineral Services - Indonesia
- Economic Council, Georgia
- Directorate Of Revenue Intelligence - India
- Tata Chemicals Ltd - India
- Rio Tinto Coal - Australia
- Videocon Industries ltd - India
- Australian Coal Association
- Globalindo Alam Lestari - Indonesia
- Wilmar Investment Holdings
- ICICI Bank Limited - India
- Kepco SPC Power Corporation, Philippines
- Therma Luzon, Inc, Philippines
- Ministry of Transport, Egypt
|
| |
| |
|
