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.
|
|
Sunday, 15 June 14
COAL FREIGHT RATES FALL FURTHER ON LACK OF DEMANDS - CAPT. REDDY
COALspot.com: The BDI softened this week as all segments fell this week. The Panamax sector being most affected. The Cape index was down 3.51 pct w ...
Friday, 13 June 14
US COAL PRODUCTION FELL 3% IN WEEK THAT ENDED JUNE 7, SAYS EIA
COALspot.com – United States the world's second largest coal producer, produced approximately 18.6 million short tons (mmst) of coal in a ...
Friday, 13 June 14
DRY BULK MARKET KEEPS ON FALLING, DESPITE RESPITE OF THE CAPESIZE SECTOR - NIKOS ROUSSANOGLOU, HELLENIC SHIPPING NEWS
The dry bulk market has kept on its lacklustre performance overall, with the Baltic Dry Index (BDI) still hovering below the 1,000 point mark. Yest ...
Thursday, 12 June 14
INDONESIA SETS HBA FOR MONTH OF JUNE AT US$ 73.64
COALspot.com - The Ministry of Energy & Mineral Resources of Indonesia has revised up first time in last four months the coal bench mark price. ...
Thursday, 12 June 14
HANDY : TA MARKET IS CONTINUING SOUTH WITH A DECREASE OF 26% W-O-W
Handy
The week started off with holidays in most European countries and the TA market is continuing south with a decrease of 26% w-o-w. We do see ...
|
|
|
Showing 3656 to 3660 news of total 6871 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
 |
|
|
| |
|
- Bhushan Steel Limited - India
- Aditya Birla Group - India
- Oldendorff Carriers - Singapore
- Planning Commission, India
- VISA Power Limited - India
- Posco Energy - South Korea
- Filglen & Citicon Mining (HK) Ltd - Hong Kong
- Billiton Holdings Pty Ltd - Australia
- Formosa Plastics Group - Taiwan
- Central Java Power - Indonesia
- Parliament of New Zealand
- The University of Queensland
- Xindia Steels Limited - India
- Baramulti Group, Indonesia
- International Coal Ventures Pvt Ltd - India
- Australian Commodity Traders Exchange
- Marubeni Corporation - India
- Aboitiz Power Corporation - Philippines
- Global Green Power PLC Corporation, Philippines
- GN Power Mariveles Coal Plant, Philippines
- Salva Resources Pvt Ltd - India
- SMG Consultants - Indonesia
- Dong Bac Coal Mineral Investment Coporation - Vietnam
- Kideco Jaya Agung - Indonesia
- Bayan Resources Tbk. - Indonesia
- Sakthi Sugars Limited - India
- Savvy Resources Ltd - HongKong
- Kohat Cement Company Ltd. - Pakistan
- Parry Sugars Refinery, India
- Electricity Authority, New Zealand
- Karaikal Port Pvt Ltd - India
- Sojitz Corporation - Japan
- Bulk Trading Sa - Switzerland
- Mintek Dendrill Indonesia
- Port Waratah Coal Services - Australia
- Gujarat Sidhee Cement - India
- Dr Ramakrishna Prasad Power Pvt Ltd - India
- Independent Power Producers Association of India
- Deloitte Consulting - India
- London Commodity Brokers - England
- Directorate Of Revenue Intelligence - India
- Agrawal Coal Company - India
- Indika Energy - Indonesia
- Mercuria Energy - Indonesia
- Goldman Sachs - Singapore
- Africa Commodities Group - South Africa
- Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission - India
- Iligan Light & Power Inc, Philippines
- Bhoruka Overseas - Indonesia
- Madhucon Powers Ltd - India
- Indonesian Coal Mining Association
- Orica Australia Pty. Ltd.
- Indogreen Group - Indonesia
- Interocean Group of Companies - India
- PNOC Exploration Corporation - Philippines
- Gujarat Mineral Development Corp Ltd - India
- Mjunction Services Limited - India
- Star Paper Mills Limited - India
- Chamber of Mines of South Africa
- Truba Alam Manunggal Engineering.Tbk - Indonesia
- Merrill Lynch Commodities Europe
- Standard Chartered Bank - UAE
- Global Coal Blending Company Limited - Australia
- Attock Cement Pakistan Limited
- Bank of Tokyo Mitsubishi UFJ Ltd
- Riau Bara Harum - Indonesia
- Thai Mozambique Logistica
- Altura Mining Limited, Indonesia
- Bahari Cakrawala Sebuku - Indonesia
- Antam Resourcindo - Indonesia
- GVK Power & Infra Limited - India
- Thiess Contractors Indonesia
- Ambuja Cements Ltd - India
- IHS Mccloskey Coal Group - USA
- PowerSource Philippines DevCo
- Manunggal Multi Energi - Indonesia
- Therma Luzon, Inc, Philippines
- Economic Council, Georgia
- PetroVietnam Power Coal Import and Supply Company
- Jaiprakash Power Ventures ltd
- Globalindo Alam Lestari - Indonesia
- Sindya Power Generating Company Private Ltd
- Heidelberg Cement - Germany
- CNBM International Corporation - China
- Alfred C Toepfer International GmbH - Germany
- CIMB Investment Bank - Malaysia
- Simpson Spence & Young - Indonesia
- Offshore Bulk Terminal Pte Ltd, Singapore
- OPG Power Generation Pvt Ltd - India
- Tata Chemicals Ltd - India
- GMR Energy Limited - India
- Samtan Co., Ltd - South Korea
- Energy Development Corp, Philippines
- IEA Clean Coal Centre - UK
- Krishnapatnam Port Company Ltd. - India
- Power Finance Corporation Ltd., India
- San Jose City I Power Corp, Philippines
- Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd - Australia
- Meenaskhi Energy Private Limited - India
- Essar Steel Hazira Ltd - India
- PTC India Limited - India
- Coalindo Energy - Indonesia
- Metalloyd Limited - United Kingdom
- Sree Jayajothi Cements Limited - India
- TNB Fuel Sdn Bhd - Malaysia
- Ind-Barath Power Infra Limited - India
- Holcim Trading Pte Ltd - Singapore
- Kobexindo Tractors - Indoneisa
- Straits Asia Resources Limited - Singapore
- Kumho Petrochemical, South Korea
- Banpu Public Company Limited - Thailand
- Romanian Commodities Exchange
- Chettinad Cement Corporation Ltd - India
- Bukit Baiduri Energy - Indonesia
- Indian Oil Corporation Limited
- Ministry of Transport, Egypt
- India Bulls Power Limited - India
- Semirara Mining Corp, Philippines
- Jindal Steel & Power Ltd - India
- Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand
- Ceylon Electricity Board - Sri Lanka
- Asia Pacific Energy Resources Ventures Inc, Philippines
- Kaltim Prima Coal - Indonesia
- Renaissance Capital - South Africa
- The Treasury - Australian Government
- Singapore Mercantile Exchange
- Mercator Lines Limited - India
- Medco Energi Mining Internasional
- Petron Corporation, Philippines
- Pendopo Energi Batubara - Indonesia
- Orica Mining Services - Indonesia
- Dalmia Cement Bharat India
- Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd, - India
- GAC Shipping (India) Pvt Ltd
- Karbindo Abesyapradhi - Indoneisa
- Binh Thuan Hamico - Vietnam
- Makarim & Taira - Indonesia
- Sarangani Energy Corporation, Philippines
- Ministry of Finance - Indonesia
- Trasteel International SA, Italy
- Sinarmas Energy and Mining - Indonesia
- Kalimantan Lumbung Energi - Indonesia
- Latin American Coal - Colombia
- Wilmar Investment Holdings
- Petrochimia International Co. Ltd.- Taiwan
- South Luzon Thermal Energy Corporation
- The State Trading Corporation of India Ltd
- Coastal Gujarat Power Limited - India
- Central Electricity Authority - India
- European Bulk Services B.V. - Netherlands
- TeaM Sual Corporation - Philippines
- Siam City Cement - Thailand
- Sical Logistics Limited - India
- Global Business Power Corporation, Philippines
- Timah Investasi Mineral - Indoneisa
- Toyota Tsusho Corporation, Japan
- Semirara Mining and Power Corporation, Philippines
- Cement Manufacturers Association - India
- Wood Mackenzie - Singapore
- Pipit Mutiara Jaya. PT, Indonesia
- Lanco Infratech Ltd - India
- Edison Trading Spa - Italy
- MS Steel International - UAE
- Indo Tambangraya Megah - Indonesia
- Barasentosa Lestari - Indonesia
- Bangladesh Power Developement Board
- Georgia Ports Authority, United States
- Videocon Industries ltd - India
- Intertek Mineral Services - Indonesia
- Price Waterhouse Coopers - Russia
- LBH Netherlands Bv - Netherlands
- Commonwealth Bank - Australia
- Siam City Cement PLC, Thailand
- Vijayanagar Sugar Pvt Ltd - India
- Bhatia International Limited - India
- Indian Energy Exchange, India
- Larsen & Toubro Limited - India
- Grasim Industreis Ltd - India
- AsiaOL BioFuels Corp., Philippines
- SMC Global Power, Philippines
- White Energy Company Limited
- Maheswari Brothers Coal Limited - India
- Cigading International Bulk Terminal - Indonesia
- Borneo Indobara - Indonesia
- New Zealand Coal & Carbon
- Vizag Seaport Private Limited - India
- ASAPP Information Group - India
- Anglo American - United Kingdom
- McConnell Dowell - Australia
- Energy Link Ltd, New Zealand
- Kepco SPC Power Corporation, Philippines
- Asmin Koalindo Tuhup - Indonesia
- Malabar Cements Ltd - India
- Carbofer General Trading SA - India
- ICICI Bank Limited - India
- Minerals Council of Australia
- Kartika Selabumi Mining - Indonesia
- Bharathi Cement Corporation - India
- Miang Besar Coal Terminal - Indonesia
- Coal and Oil Company - UAE
- Australian Coal Association
- Rio Tinto Coal - Australia
- Bukit Asam (Persero) Tbk - Indonesia
- Eastern Energy - Thailand
- Ministry of Mines - Canada
- Vedanta Resources Plc - India
- Tamil Nadu electricity Board
- Directorate General of MIneral and Coal - Indonesia
- SN Aboitiz Power Inc, Philippines
- Meralco Power Generation, Philippines
- Bukit Makmur.PT - Indonesia
- Eastern Coal Council - USA
- Uttam Galva Steels Limited - India
- Jorong Barutama Greston.PT - Indonesia
- Kapuas Tunggal Persada - Indonesia
- Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission - India
- Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited - India
|
| |
| |
|
