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.
|
|
Friday, 06 June 14
RICHARDS BAY COAL TERMINAL SHIPPED 4.221 MMT OF COAL TO SOUTHERN ASIAN COUNTRIES IN MAY
COALspot.com: South Africa's Richards Bay Coal Terminal (RBCT) the single largest export coal terminal in the world, shipped 5.58 million tons ...
Thursday, 05 June 14
RBCT SOUTH AFRICA SHIPPED 21% LESS COAL IN APRIL COMPARED TO MARCH EXPORTS
COALspot.com: South Africa's Richards Bay Coal Terminal (RBCT) the single largest export coal terminal in the world, shipped 5.45 million tons ...
Thursday, 05 June 14
PANAMAX : THIS WEEK STARTED IN A SLOW PACE - FEARNLEYS
Handy
After last week's silent and unexciting week we see some more activity this week, especially from the South American market. The rates ...
Thursday, 05 June 14
PORT OF NEWCASTLE SHIPPED 2.91 MMT OF COAL IN THIS PAST WEEK
COALspot.com: The figure constitutes a 4.30 percent higher compared to the previous week, following a week on week decreased of 19.13 percent recor ...
Wednesday, 04 June 14
SKULD: DIVERSIFICATION AND A ROBUST BOTTOM LINE
In February, I was delighted to ring in the new policy year with the Skuld team following a solid renewal round and a strong year. 2013 was, in man ...
|
|
|
Showing 3671 to 3675 news of total 6871 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
 |
|
|
| |
|
- Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited - India
- Siam City Cement - Thailand
- Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd, - India
- Eastern Energy - Thailand
- Indogreen Group - Indonesia
- Ind-Barath Power Infra Limited - India
- Binh Thuan Hamico - Vietnam
- Karbindo Abesyapradhi - Indoneisa
- Formosa Plastics Group - Taiwan
- Grasim Industreis Ltd - India
- London Commodity Brokers - England
- McConnell Dowell - Australia
- Rio Tinto Coal - Australia
- Aditya Birla Group - India
- Metalloyd Limited - United Kingdom
- Aboitiz Power Corporation - Philippines
- Toyota Tsusho Corporation, Japan
- Wood Mackenzie - Singapore
- TeaM Sual Corporation - Philippines
- Sical Logistics Limited - India
- Price Waterhouse Coopers - Russia
- Bank of Tokyo Mitsubishi UFJ Ltd
- Vedanta Resources Plc - India
- Kideco Jaya Agung - Indonesia
- Straits Asia Resources Limited - Singapore
- Electricity Authority, New Zealand
- India Bulls Power Limited - India
- Mintek Dendrill Indonesia
- Filglen & Citicon Mining (HK) Ltd - Hong Kong
- Attock Cement Pakistan Limited
- Edison Trading Spa - Italy
- Vizag Seaport Private Limited - India
- Kapuas Tunggal Persada - Indonesia
- VISA Power Limited - India
- Iligan Light & Power Inc, Philippines
- Barasentosa Lestari - Indonesia
- Sindya Power Generating Company Private Ltd
- Dr Ramakrishna Prasad Power Pvt Ltd - India
- Mjunction Services Limited - India
- Commonwealth Bank - Australia
- Lanco Infratech Ltd - India
- Pendopo Energi Batubara - Indonesia
- Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd - Australia
- Xindia Steels Limited - India
- Global Coal Blending Company Limited - Australia
- SMC Global Power, Philippines
- GMR Energy Limited - India
- Parry Sugars Refinery, India
- Petron Corporation, Philippines
- Tamil Nadu electricity Board
- Bhoruka Overseas - Indonesia
- Orica Mining Services - Indonesia
- Medco Energi Mining Internasional
- SMG Consultants - Indonesia
- Bayan Resources Tbk. - Indonesia
- Kalimantan Lumbung Energi - Indonesia
- Goldman Sachs - Singapore
- Singapore Mercantile Exchange
- Baramulti Group, Indonesia
- Carbofer General Trading SA - India
- Directorate General of MIneral and Coal - Indonesia
- Cement Manufacturers Association - India
- Siam City Cement PLC, Thailand
- Indian Energy Exchange, India
- Kobexindo Tractors - Indoneisa
- Bukit Makmur.PT - Indonesia
- Deloitte Consulting - India
- Cigading International Bulk Terminal - Indonesia
- Agrawal Coal Company - India
- Bangladesh Power Developement Board
- Semirara Mining Corp, Philippines
- Therma Luzon, Inc, Philippines
- Asmin Koalindo Tuhup - Indonesia
- Africa Commodities Group - South Africa
- Anglo American - United Kingdom
- The State Trading Corporation of India Ltd
- IHS Mccloskey Coal Group - USA
- Bharathi Cement Corporation - India
- Chettinad Cement Corporation Ltd - India
- Thiess Contractors Indonesia
- Central Electricity Authority - India
- Wilmar Investment Holdings
- Coalindo Energy - Indonesia
- Ministry of Finance - Indonesia
- Trasteel International SA, Italy
- Latin American Coal - Colombia
- Petrochimia International Co. Ltd.- Taiwan
- Bukit Baiduri Energy - Indonesia
- Gujarat Sidhee Cement - India
- Dong Bac Coal Mineral Investment Coporation - Vietnam
- Intertek Mineral Services - Indonesia
- New Zealand Coal & Carbon
- Kepco SPC Power Corporation, Philippines
- Offshore Bulk Terminal Pte Ltd, Singapore
- Minerals Council of Australia
- Oldendorff Carriers - Singapore
- Maheswari Brothers Coal Limited - India
- Central Java Power - Indonesia
- GVK Power & Infra Limited - India
- Directorate Of Revenue Intelligence - India
- Bahari Cakrawala Sebuku - Indonesia
- Coastal Gujarat Power Limited - India
- South Luzon Thermal Energy Corporation
- Asia Pacific Energy Resources Ventures Inc, Philippines
- ASAPP Information Group - India
- Australian Coal Association
- CNBM International Corporation - China
- Tata Chemicals Ltd - India
- Indo Tambangraya Megah - Indonesia
- Global Business Power Corporation, Philippines
- Ministry of Mines - Canada
- Ministry of Transport, Egypt
- Thai Mozambique Logistica
- Indonesian Coal Mining Association
- Kartika Selabumi Mining - Indonesia
- Standard Chartered Bank - UAE
- CIMB Investment Bank - Malaysia
- Kumho Petrochemical, South Korea
- Heidelberg Cement - Germany
- Gujarat Mineral Development Corp Ltd - India
- Coal and Oil Company - UAE
- Simpson Spence & Young - Indonesia
- Star Paper Mills Limited - India
- Salva Resources Pvt Ltd - India
- Parliament of New Zealand
- Independent Power Producers Association of India
- Chamber of Mines of South Africa
- Posco Energy - South Korea
- Altura Mining Limited, Indonesia
- PetroVietnam Power Coal Import and Supply Company
- Georgia Ports Authority, United States
- Pipit Mutiara Jaya. PT, Indonesia
- Madhucon Powers Ltd - India
- Malabar Cements Ltd - India
- Uttam Galva Steels Limited - India
- Renaissance Capital - South Africa
- Truba Alam Manunggal Engineering.Tbk - Indonesia
- Power Finance Corporation Ltd., India
- Jorong Barutama Greston.PT - Indonesia
- Holcim Trading Pte Ltd - Singapore
- Ambuja Cements Ltd - India
- Meralco Power Generation, Philippines
- San Jose City I Power Corp, Philippines
- Meenaskhi Energy Private Limited - India
- TNB Fuel Sdn Bhd - Malaysia
- Bhushan Steel Limited - India
- AsiaOL BioFuels Corp., Philippines
- Merrill Lynch Commodities Europe
- Ceylon Electricity Board - Sri Lanka
- Sojitz Corporation - Japan
- Semirara Mining and Power Corporation, Philippines
- Krishnapatnam Port Company Ltd. - India
- International Coal Ventures Pvt Ltd - India
- Billiton Holdings Pty Ltd - Australia
- Orica Australia Pty. Ltd.
- Jaiprakash Power Ventures ltd
- Mercator Lines Limited - India
- SN Aboitiz Power Inc, Philippines
- Bukit Asam (Persero) Tbk - Indonesia
- Indika Energy - Indonesia
- Samtan Co., Ltd - South Korea
- Timah Investasi Mineral - Indoneisa
- Sree Jayajothi Cements Limited - India
- Sakthi Sugars Limited - India
- Jindal Steel & Power Ltd - India
- PTC India Limited - India
- Mercuria Energy - Indonesia
- Dalmia Cement Bharat India
- GN Power Mariveles Coal Plant, Philippines
- Riau Bara Harum - Indonesia
- Essar Steel Hazira Ltd - India
- Australian Commodity Traders Exchange
- Romanian Commodities Exchange
- The University of Queensland
- Manunggal Multi Energi - Indonesia
- Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission - India
- Energy Development Corp, Philippines
- Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand
- White Energy Company Limited
- Sarangani Energy Corporation, Philippines
- Bhatia International Limited - India
- Interocean Group of Companies - India
- Economic Council, Georgia
- Alfred C Toepfer International GmbH - Germany
- GAC Shipping (India) Pvt Ltd
- PNOC Exploration Corporation - Philippines
- Energy Link Ltd, New Zealand
- Antam Resourcindo - Indonesia
- Planning Commission, India
- European Bulk Services B.V. - Netherlands
- The Treasury - Australian Government
- Bulk Trading Sa - Switzerland
- Banpu Public Company Limited - Thailand
- Videocon Industries ltd - India
- ICICI Bank Limited - India
- Karaikal Port Pvt Ltd - India
- Globalindo Alam Lestari - Indonesia
- PowerSource Philippines DevCo
- Larsen & Toubro Limited - India
- IEA Clean Coal Centre - UK
- Marubeni Corporation - India
- Miang Besar Coal Terminal - Indonesia
- Port Waratah Coal Services - Australia
- Vijayanagar Sugar Pvt Ltd - India
- Sinarmas Energy and Mining - Indonesia
- Borneo Indobara - Indonesia
- Global Green Power PLC Corporation, Philippines
- Makarim & Taira - Indonesia
- Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission - India
- Kaltim Prima Coal - Indonesia
- Kohat Cement Company Ltd. - Pakistan
- Savvy Resources Ltd - HongKong
- OPG Power Generation Pvt Ltd - India
- Eastern Coal Council - USA
- Indian Oil Corporation Limited
- LBH Netherlands Bv - Netherlands
- MS Steel International - UAE
|
| |
| |
|
