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.
|
|
Thursday, 12 June 14
CONSOLIDATION IS THE ' NAME OF THE GAME' WHEN IT COMES TO SHIPYARDS ACROSS ASIA - NIKOS ROUSSANOGLOU, HELLENIC SHIPPING NEWS
Intense competition, a swelling of new greenfield shipyards over the past few years mainly in China, especially prior to the 2008 global financial ...
Wednesday, 11 June 14
INDONESIA'S COAL EXPORT VOLUME AND REVENUE SLIPS 2.75% AND 6.73% RESPECTIVELY IN APRIL
COALspot.com: Indonesia, one of the world's largest coal producer and the global largest multi grade coal exporter shipped around $1.8* b ...
Wednesday, 11 June 14
BPI TOUCHING A NEW LOW FOR THE YEAR
The Dry Bulk market closed off the week positively, on the back of firming Capesize rates, while the market overall continues to face a very challe ...
Monday, 09 June 14
GOVT GETS TOUGH ON ILLEGAL MINING, SUSPENDS LICENSES - THE JAKARTA POST
The government has temporarily suspended the licenses of 62 mineral and coal transportation companies as part of its efforts to curb illegal mining ...
Monday, 09 June 14
INDO SUB-BIT COAL SWAPS FOR Q3,Q4 OF 2014 AND Q1 2015: LOST ON DAY AND MONTH
COALspot.com: Indonesian coal swaps for average Q3’ 2014 continue last week’s trend or lost on day, week and on month according to Asia ...
|
|
|
Showing 3661 to 3665 news of total 6871 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
 |
|
|
| |
|
- Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd, - India
- Savvy Resources Ltd - HongKong
- Tamil Nadu electricity Board
- Antam Resourcindo - Indonesia
- Interocean Group of Companies - India
- OPG Power Generation Pvt Ltd - India
- The State Trading Corporation of India Ltd
- Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand
- Global Business Power Corporation, Philippines
- Pipit Mutiara Jaya. PT, Indonesia
- Sindya Power Generating Company Private Ltd
- Mintek Dendrill Indonesia
- Ministry of Transport, Egypt
- Dr Ramakrishna Prasad Power Pvt Ltd - India
- Australian Coal Association
- PetroVietnam Power Coal Import and Supply Company
- Minerals Council of Australia
- Offshore Bulk Terminal Pte Ltd, Singapore
- Attock Cement Pakistan Limited
- Parliament of New Zealand
- Commonwealth Bank - Australia
- Sakthi Sugars Limited - India
- GMR Energy Limited - India
- Kumho Petrochemical, South Korea
- Bharathi Cement Corporation - India
- Manunggal Multi Energi - Indonesia
- Energy Development Corp, Philippines
- Indian Energy Exchange, India
- Bahari Cakrawala Sebuku - Indonesia
- Directorate General of MIneral and Coal - Indonesia
- Jaiprakash Power Ventures ltd
- SMG Consultants - Indonesia
- Vizag Seaport Private Limited - India
- Planning Commission, India
- Directorate Of Revenue Intelligence - India
- Bhoruka Overseas - Indonesia
- Billiton Holdings Pty Ltd - Australia
- Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission - India
- Metalloyd Limited - United Kingdom
- Ind-Barath Power Infra Limited - India
- International Coal Ventures Pvt Ltd - India
- Renaissance Capital - South Africa
- Cigading International Bulk Terminal - Indonesia
- Videocon Industries ltd - India
- Makarim & Taira - Indonesia
- Power Finance Corporation Ltd., India
- The University of Queensland
- Sree Jayajothi Cements Limited - India
- AsiaOL BioFuels Corp., Philippines
- Iligan Light & Power Inc, Philippines
- Oldendorff Carriers - Singapore
- ASAPP Information Group - India
- Petron Corporation, Philippines
- Kartika Selabumi Mining - Indonesia
- Globalindo Alam Lestari - Indonesia
- TNB Fuel Sdn Bhd - Malaysia
- Georgia Ports Authority, United States
- Australian Commodity Traders Exchange
- Ceylon Electricity Board - Sri Lanka
- Africa Commodities Group - South Africa
- Karbindo Abesyapradhi - Indoneisa
- Indian Oil Corporation Limited
- CIMB Investment Bank - Malaysia
- Bhatia International Limited - India
- SN Aboitiz Power Inc, Philippines
- Romanian Commodities Exchange
- Kalimantan Lumbung Energi - Indonesia
- Bulk Trading Sa - Switzerland
- Ambuja Cements Ltd - India
- GN Power Mariveles Coal Plant, Philippines
- Kobexindo Tractors - Indoneisa
- Samtan Co., Ltd - South Korea
- Kideco Jaya Agung - Indonesia
- India Bulls Power Limited - India
- PTC India Limited - India
- Aditya Birla Group - India
- Eastern Coal Council - USA
- San Jose City I Power Corp, Philippines
- Coalindo Energy - Indonesia
- Orica Mining Services - Indonesia
- Salva Resources Pvt Ltd - India
- MS Steel International - UAE
- Sinarmas Energy and Mining - Indonesia
- SMC Global Power, Philippines
- Heidelberg Cement - Germany
- Gujarat Sidhee Cement - India
- Thiess Contractors Indonesia
- The Treasury - Australian Government
- Toyota Tsusho Corporation, Japan
- Sojitz Corporation - Japan
- Orica Australia Pty. Ltd.
- Indika Energy - Indonesia
- Karaikal Port Pvt Ltd - India
- Asia Pacific Energy Resources Ventures Inc, Philippines
- Thai Mozambique Logistica
- Filglen & Citicon Mining (HK) Ltd - Hong Kong
- Xindia Steels Limited - India
- European Bulk Services B.V. - Netherlands
- Agrawal Coal Company - India
- Parry Sugars Refinery, India
- Binh Thuan Hamico - Vietnam
- Indonesian Coal Mining Association
- Rio Tinto Coal - Australia
- Semirara Mining and Power Corporation, Philippines
- Maheswari Brothers Coal Limited - India
- Altura Mining Limited, Indonesia
- IEA Clean Coal Centre - UK
- Straits Asia Resources Limited - Singapore
- Gujarat Mineral Development Corp Ltd - India
- GVK Power & Infra Limited - India
- Vijayanagar Sugar Pvt Ltd - India
- Miang Besar Coal Terminal - Indonesia
- LBH Netherlands Bv - Netherlands
- Kaltim Prima Coal - Indonesia
- Uttam Galva Steels Limited - India
- Pendopo Energi Batubara - Indonesia
- GAC Shipping (India) Pvt Ltd
- Deloitte Consulting - India
- IHS Mccloskey Coal Group - USA
- Baramulti Group, Indonesia
- Siam City Cement - Thailand
- Indo Tambangraya Megah - Indonesia
- Chettinad Cement Corporation Ltd - India
- Borneo Indobara - Indonesia
- Jorong Barutama Greston.PT - Indonesia
- London Commodity Brokers - England
- Essar Steel Hazira Ltd - India
- TeaM Sual Corporation - Philippines
- Kapuas Tunggal Persada - Indonesia
- Therma Luzon, Inc, Philippines
- Medco Energi Mining Internasional
- Malabar Cements Ltd - India
- Latin American Coal - Colombia
- Riau Bara Harum - Indonesia
- Dalmia Cement Bharat India
- Goldman Sachs - Singapore
- Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd - Australia
- Barasentosa Lestari - Indonesia
- Standard Chartered Bank - UAE
- Bangladesh Power Developement Board
- Bayan Resources Tbk. - Indonesia
- South Luzon Thermal Energy Corporation
- Energy Link Ltd, New Zealand
- Grasim Industreis Ltd - India
- Central Java Power - Indonesia
- Electricity Authority, New Zealand
- Mercuria Energy - Indonesia
- Chamber of Mines of South Africa
- Trasteel International SA, Italy
- Madhucon Powers Ltd - India
- Bukit Asam (Persero) Tbk - Indonesia
- Mjunction Services Limited - India
- Merrill Lynch Commodities Europe
- Asmin Koalindo Tuhup - Indonesia
- Meenaskhi Energy Private Limited - India
- McConnell Dowell - Australia
- Ministry of Mines - Canada
- Tata Chemicals Ltd - India
- Aboitiz Power Corporation - Philippines
- ICICI Bank Limited - India
- Lanco Infratech Ltd - India
- Vedanta Resources Plc - India
- PNOC Exploration Corporation - Philippines
- VISA Power Limited - India
- Price Waterhouse Coopers - Russia
- Economic Council, Georgia
- Simpson Spence & Young - Indonesia
- New Zealand Coal & Carbon
- CNBM International Corporation - China
- Central Electricity Authority - India
- Siam City Cement PLC, Thailand
- Bukit Makmur.PT - Indonesia
- Eastern Energy - Thailand
- Anglo American - United Kingdom
- Port Waratah Coal Services - Australia
- Banpu Public Company Limited - Thailand
- Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission - India
- Holcim Trading Pte Ltd - Singapore
- Coastal Gujarat Power Limited - India
- Kepco SPC Power Corporation, Philippines
- Formosa Plastics Group - Taiwan
- Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited - India
- Krishnapatnam Port Company Ltd. - India
- Intertek Mineral Services - Indonesia
- Edison Trading Spa - Italy
- Bank of Tokyo Mitsubishi UFJ Ltd
- Kohat Cement Company Ltd. - Pakistan
- Cement Manufacturers Association - India
- Semirara Mining Corp, Philippines
- Star Paper Mills Limited - India
- Petrochimia International Co. Ltd.- Taiwan
- Carbofer General Trading SA - India
- Sical Logistics Limited - India
- Wilmar Investment Holdings
- Bukit Baiduri Energy - Indonesia
- Alfred C Toepfer International GmbH - Germany
- Posco Energy - South Korea
- Mercator Lines Limited - India
- Timah Investasi Mineral - Indoneisa
- Global Green Power PLC Corporation, Philippines
- PowerSource Philippines DevCo
- Independent Power Producers Association of India
- Truba Alam Manunggal Engineering.Tbk - Indonesia
- Indogreen Group - Indonesia
- Singapore Mercantile Exchange
- Larsen & Toubro Limited - India
- Wood Mackenzie - Singapore
- White Energy Company Limited
- Dong Bac Coal Mineral Investment Coporation - Vietnam
- Bhushan Steel Limited - India
- Sarangani Energy Corporation, Philippines
- Ministry of Finance - Indonesia
- Global Coal Blending Company Limited - Australia
- Coal and Oil Company - UAE
- Meralco Power Generation, Philippines
- Marubeni Corporation - India
- Jindal Steel & Power Ltd - India
|
| |
| |
|
