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, 09 June 14
API 8 CFR SOUTH CHINA COAL SWAP Q3 14 DELIVERIES LOST 4.61% M-O-M
COALspot.com: API 8 CFR South China Coal swaps for average Q3 14 deliveries lost 4.61 percent month on month and closed at US$ 71.62 per mt a ...
Sunday, 08 June 14
DRY BULK MARKET RATES FOR PANAMXES TO REMAIN VOLATILE; NO IMPROVEMENTS SEEN OVER THE WEEK
COALspot.com: Cape index increase pushes BDI index to 989 points week on week. The BDI firmed up by 5.88 pct and closed at 989 points week ended 6 ...
Saturday, 07 June 14
EVERYTHING CHANGES, AND NOTHING ABIDES - HERACLITUS
A couple of weeks ago, and while everyone was focusing on the struggling freight market, Russia and China made history by signing a three-decade lo ...
Saturday, 07 June 14
FIRST BITE AT ANTI-CORRUPTION CLAUSE - BIMCO
In recent years a number of countries have introduced anti-corruption legislation which, unfortunately, fails to recognise the practical implicatio ...
Saturday, 07 June 14
U.S. MONTHLY COAL PRODUCTION SLIGHTLY HIGHER IN MAY 2014
COALspot.com – United States the world's second largest coal producer, produced approximately 19.2 million short tons (mmst) of coal in a ...
|
|
|
Showing 3666 to 3670 news of total 6871 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
 |
|
|
| |
|
- Semirara Mining and Power Corporation, Philippines
- Orica Australia Pty. Ltd.
- Metalloyd Limited - United Kingdom
- Bahari Cakrawala Sebuku - Indonesia
- Simpson Spence & Young - Indonesia
- Rio Tinto Coal - Australia
- Power Finance Corporation Ltd., India
- Thai Mozambique Logistica
- Gujarat Mineral Development Corp Ltd - India
- Sarangani Energy Corporation, Philippines
- Carbofer General Trading SA - India
- VISA Power Limited - India
- Goldman Sachs - Singapore
- Renaissance Capital - South Africa
- Anglo American - United Kingdom
- Kalimantan Lumbung Energi - Indonesia
- Singapore Mercantile Exchange
- Videocon Industries ltd - India
- Ceylon Electricity Board - Sri Lanka
- Indo Tambangraya Megah - Indonesia
- Energy Link Ltd, New Zealand
- Billiton Holdings Pty Ltd - Australia
- Central Java Power - Indonesia
- Kideco Jaya Agung - Indonesia
- Dr Ramakrishna Prasad Power Pvt Ltd - India
- Makarim & Taira - Indonesia
- Sakthi Sugars Limited - India
- Economic Council, Georgia
- Pipit Mutiara Jaya. PT, Indonesia
- TNB Fuel Sdn Bhd - Malaysia
- Sical Logistics Limited - India
- Larsen & Toubro Limited - India
- Vedanta Resources Plc - India
- Eastern Energy - Thailand
- Truba Alam Manunggal Engineering.Tbk - Indonesia
- Star Paper Mills Limited - India
- Orica Mining Services - Indonesia
- Ministry of Mines - Canada
- Independent Power Producers Association of India
- TeaM Sual Corporation - Philippines
- Bhoruka Overseas - Indonesia
- Therma Luzon, Inc, Philippines
- Chettinad Cement Corporation Ltd - India
- The Treasury - Australian Government
- Wood Mackenzie - Singapore
- London Commodity Brokers - England
- Price Waterhouse Coopers - Russia
- Intertek Mineral Services - Indonesia
- Indika Energy - Indonesia
- Karbindo Abesyapradhi - Indoneisa
- Petrochimia International Co. Ltd.- Taiwan
- SMC Global Power, Philippines
- Kobexindo Tractors - Indoneisa
- Iligan Light & Power Inc, Philippines
- OPG Power Generation Pvt Ltd - India
- ICICI Bank Limited - India
- Dong Bac Coal Mineral Investment Coporation - Vietnam
- Directorate Of Revenue Intelligence - India
- Antam Resourcindo - Indonesia
- Kepco SPC Power Corporation, Philippines
- Bayan Resources Tbk. - Indonesia
- Mercator Lines Limited - India
- Thiess Contractors Indonesia
- Australian Commodity Traders Exchange
- Siam City Cement PLC, Thailand
- Energy Development Corp, Philippines
- GVK Power & Infra Limited - India
- Directorate General of MIneral and Coal - Indonesia
- Global Business Power Corporation, Philippines
- Medco Energi Mining Internasional
- MS Steel International - UAE
- Altura Mining Limited, Indonesia
- LBH Netherlands Bv - Netherlands
- Cigading International Bulk Terminal - Indonesia
- Gujarat Sidhee Cement - India
- Malabar Cements Ltd - India
- IHS Mccloskey Coal Group - USA
- Parliament of New Zealand
- Ministry of Transport, Egypt
- Interocean Group of Companies - India
- Minerals Council of Australia
- Dalmia Cement Bharat India
- Mercuria Energy - Indonesia
- Oldendorff Carriers - Singapore
- Romanian Commodities Exchange
- Edison Trading Spa - Italy
- Aboitiz Power Corporation - Philippines
- Cement Manufacturers Association - India
- Bank of Tokyo Mitsubishi UFJ Ltd
- PTC India Limited - India
- Bangladesh Power Developement Board
- Miang Besar Coal Terminal - Indonesia
- European Bulk Services B.V. - Netherlands
- Posco Energy - South Korea
- Banpu Public Company Limited - Thailand
- Jaiprakash Power Ventures ltd
- Parry Sugars Refinery, India
- Meenaskhi Energy Private Limited - India
- Bukit Makmur.PT - Indonesia
- Mintek Dendrill Indonesia
- Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission - India
- PetroVietnam Power Coal Import and Supply Company
- Alfred C Toepfer International GmbH - Germany
- Kumho Petrochemical, South Korea
- Coal and Oil Company - UAE
- GMR Energy Limited - India
- Essar Steel Hazira Ltd - India
- Straits Asia Resources Limited - Singapore
- Globalindo Alam Lestari - Indonesia
- Kapuas Tunggal Persada - Indonesia
- Ministry of Finance - Indonesia
- Borneo Indobara - Indonesia
- Asia Pacific Energy Resources Ventures Inc, Philippines
- San Jose City I Power Corp, Philippines
- Uttam Galva Steels Limited - India
- Trasteel International SA, Italy
- Binh Thuan Hamico - Vietnam
- Global Coal Blending Company Limited - Australia
- PowerSource Philippines DevCo
- Kaltim Prima Coal - Indonesia
- Agrawal Coal Company - India
- Latin American Coal - Colombia
- Heidelberg Cement - Germany
- GAC Shipping (India) Pvt Ltd
- Filglen & Citicon Mining (HK) Ltd - Hong Kong
- Africa Commodities Group - South Africa
- Indonesian Coal Mining Association
- Tamil Nadu electricity Board
- Wilmar Investment Holdings
- Marubeni Corporation - India
- Bhatia International Limited - India
- Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited - India
- Bharathi Cement Corporation - India
- Toyota Tsusho Corporation, Japan
- South Luzon Thermal Energy Corporation
- Meralco Power Generation, Philippines
- India Bulls Power Limited - India
- Australian Coal Association
- Formosa Plastics Group - Taiwan
- Samtan Co., Ltd - South Korea
- McConnell Dowell - Australia
- Riau Bara Harum - Indonesia
- Grasim Industreis Ltd - India
- The University of Queensland
- Offshore Bulk Terminal Pte Ltd, Singapore
- Global Green Power PLC Corporation, Philippines
- Holcim Trading Pte Ltd - Singapore
- Jorong Barutama Greston.PT - Indonesia
- Pendopo Energi Batubara - Indonesia
- Savvy Resources Ltd - HongKong
- Central Electricity Authority - India
- Coastal Gujarat Power Limited - India
- Sindya Power Generating Company Private Ltd
- Electricity Authority, New Zealand
- Krishnapatnam Port Company Ltd. - India
- Kohat Cement Company Ltd. - Pakistan
- Sree Jayajothi Cements Limited - India
- Baramulti Group, Indonesia
- Salva Resources Pvt Ltd - India
- Sinarmas Energy and Mining - Indonesia
- Standard Chartered Bank - UAE
- Planning Commission, India
- Attock Cement Pakistan Limited
- Karaikal Port Pvt Ltd - India
- AsiaOL BioFuels Corp., Philippines
- The State Trading Corporation of India Ltd
- IEA Clean Coal Centre - UK
- Maheswari Brothers Coal Limited - India
- Semirara Mining Corp, Philippines
- Eastern Coal Council - USA
- Kartika Selabumi Mining - Indonesia
- Manunggal Multi Energi - Indonesia
- Bukit Asam (Persero) Tbk - Indonesia
- Aditya Birla Group - India
- Lanco Infratech Ltd - India
- Petron Corporation, Philippines
- Asmin Koalindo Tuhup - Indonesia
- SMG Consultants - Indonesia
- Mjunction Services Limited - India
- Xindia Steels Limited - India
- Georgia Ports Authority, United States
- Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand
- Sojitz Corporation - Japan
- SN Aboitiz Power Inc, Philippines
- Madhucon Powers Ltd - India
- ASAPP Information Group - India
- Port Waratah Coal Services - Australia
- Bukit Baiduri Energy - Indonesia
- Siam City Cement - Thailand
- Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd, - India
- GN Power Mariveles Coal Plant, Philippines
- Merrill Lynch Commodities Europe
- Commonwealth Bank - Australia
- Deloitte Consulting - India
- Barasentosa Lestari - Indonesia
- Tata Chemicals Ltd - India
- Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission - India
- Coalindo Energy - Indonesia
- Ind-Barath Power Infra Limited - India
- CIMB Investment Bank - Malaysia
- Indian Oil Corporation Limited
- Bulk Trading Sa - Switzerland
- Indogreen Group - Indonesia
- Chamber of Mines of South Africa
- White Energy Company Limited
- Vijayanagar Sugar Pvt Ltd - India
- CNBM International Corporation - China
- Bhushan Steel Limited - India
- Indian Energy Exchange, India
- Jindal Steel & Power Ltd - India
- Timah Investasi Mineral - Indoneisa
- New Zealand Coal & Carbon
- International Coal Ventures Pvt Ltd - India
- Vizag Seaport Private Limited - India
- Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd - Australia
- Ambuja Cements Ltd - India
- PNOC Exploration Corporation - Philippines
|
| |
| |
|
