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, 02 June 14
SUB-BIT FOB INDONESIA COAL SWAPS LOST GROUND THIS WEEK
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, 02 June 14
SOUTH CHINA COAL SWAP WAS SHOWING A POSITIVE MOVE IN Q4, INSTEAD OF THIS WEEK'S WEAK TREND
COALspot.com: API 8 CFR South China Coal swaps for average Q3 14 deliveries lost 3.39 percent month on month and closed at US$ 72.65 per mt as on F ...
Sunday, 01 June 14
INDO - INDIA SUPRMAX FREIGHT RATES CONTINUED TO DOWN THIS WEEK
COALspot.com: The freight market was soft this past week as all sectors soften particularly Panamax index was lost 129 points or 12.88% week on wee ...
Friday, 30 May 14
CLEAN COAL PROCESSING & CONVERSION ASIA SUMMIT 2014
Clean Coal Processing & Conversion Asia Summit 2014 will be held on Nov 20-21st, 2014 in Jakarta, Indonesia.
With the cooperation of ...
Friday, 30 May 14
US COAL PRODUCTION RELATIVELY FLAT WEEK ON WEEK
COALspot.com – United States the world's second largest coal producer, produced approximately 18.6 million short tons (mmst) of coal in a ...
|
|
|
Showing 3676 to 3680 news of total 6871 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
 |
|
|
| |
|
- GVK Power & Infra Limited - India
- Tamil Nadu electricity Board
- Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand
- Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission - India
- Globalindo Alam Lestari - Indonesia
- Tata Chemicals Ltd - India
- Dr Ramakrishna Prasad Power Pvt Ltd - India
- Kideco Jaya Agung - Indonesia
- Directorate Of Revenue Intelligence - India
- GN Power Mariveles Coal Plant, Philippines
- Metalloyd Limited - United Kingdom
- London Commodity Brokers - England
- Sojitz Corporation - Japan
- New Zealand Coal & Carbon
- Siam City Cement - Thailand
- Xindia Steels Limited - India
- Bulk Trading Sa - Switzerland
- Samtan Co., Ltd - South Korea
- Star Paper Mills Limited - India
- Global Green Power PLC Corporation, Philippines
- Sinarmas Energy and Mining - Indonesia
- Coalindo Energy - Indonesia
- SN Aboitiz Power Inc, Philippines
- Banpu Public Company Limited - Thailand
- Singapore Mercantile Exchange
- ICICI Bank Limited - India
- Mercuria Energy - Indonesia
- Sical Logistics Limited - India
- Timah Investasi Mineral - Indoneisa
- LBH Netherlands Bv - Netherlands
- Vedanta Resources Plc - India
- Essar Steel Hazira Ltd - India
- Interocean Group of Companies - India
- Truba Alam Manunggal Engineering.Tbk - Indonesia
- PNOC Exploration Corporation - Philippines
- Kumho Petrochemical, South Korea
- Kalimantan Lumbung Energi - Indonesia
- Renaissance Capital - South Africa
- Deloitte Consulting - India
- Bhatia International Limited - India
- Economic Council, Georgia
- Meralco Power Generation, Philippines
- San Jose City I Power Corp, Philippines
- Krishnapatnam Port Company Ltd. - India
- Heidelberg Cement - Germany
- Manunggal Multi Energi - Indonesia
- Petrochimia International Co. Ltd.- Taiwan
- Binh Thuan Hamico - Vietnam
- Indo Tambangraya Megah - Indonesia
- Bukit Makmur.PT - Indonesia
- Trasteel International SA, Italy
- Asmin Koalindo Tuhup - Indonesia
- AsiaOL BioFuels Corp., Philippines
- Central Electricity Authority - India
- Commonwealth Bank - Australia
- Global Business Power Corporation, Philippines
- Planning Commission, India
- Oldendorff Carriers - Singapore
- Asia Pacific Energy Resources Ventures Inc, Philippines
- Indogreen Group - Indonesia
- Indian Oil Corporation Limited
- Filglen & Citicon Mining (HK) Ltd - Hong Kong
- Madhucon Powers Ltd - India
- Vizag Seaport Private Limited - India
- Minerals Council of Australia
- Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission - India
- Larsen & Toubro Limited - India
- Malabar Cements Ltd - India
- Semirara Mining and Power Corporation, Philippines
- Petron Corporation, Philippines
- Thai Mozambique Logistica
- Rio Tinto Coal - Australia
- Borneo Indobara - Indonesia
- Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd, - India
- Bahari Cakrawala Sebuku - Indonesia
- Mintek Dendrill Indonesia
- Thiess Contractors Indonesia
- Coal and Oil Company - UAE
- Independent Power Producers Association of India
- VISA Power Limited - India
- Orica Mining Services - Indonesia
- Cigading International Bulk Terminal - Indonesia
- Savvy Resources Ltd - HongKong
- Barasentosa Lestari - Indonesia
- Kohat Cement Company Ltd. - Pakistan
- Straits Asia Resources Limited - Singapore
- Bhoruka Overseas - Indonesia
- India Bulls Power Limited - India
- Aboitiz Power Corporation - Philippines
- Grasim Industreis Ltd - India
- Parry Sugars Refinery, India
- Carbofer General Trading SA - India
- Mjunction Services Limited - India
- IHS Mccloskey Coal Group - USA
- Sree Jayajothi Cements Limited - India
- Simpson Spence & Young - Indonesia
- Agrawal Coal Company - India
- Ministry of Mines - Canada
- Kaltim Prima Coal - Indonesia
- Dong Bac Coal Mineral Investment Coporation - Vietnam
- Sindya Power Generating Company Private Ltd
- Kobexindo Tractors - Indoneisa
- Coastal Gujarat Power Limited - India
- The University of Queensland
- Africa Commodities Group - South Africa
- Global Coal Blending Company Limited - Australia
- Pipit Mutiara Jaya. PT, Indonesia
- Therma Luzon, Inc, Philippines
- Orica Australia Pty. Ltd.
- Bharathi Cement Corporation - India
- Posco Energy - South Korea
- The Treasury - Australian Government
- Altura Mining Limited, Indonesia
- Meenaskhi Energy Private Limited - India
- Lanco Infratech Ltd - India
- Semirara Mining Corp, Philippines
- Eastern Energy - Thailand
- Goldman Sachs - Singapore
- Iligan Light & Power Inc, Philippines
- Energy Link Ltd, New Zealand
- TNB Fuel Sdn Bhd - Malaysia
- European Bulk Services B.V. - Netherlands
- CNBM International Corporation - China
- Holcim Trading Pte Ltd - Singapore
- Makarim & Taira - Indonesia
- Videocon Industries ltd - India
- Gujarat Sidhee Cement - India
- Ministry of Transport, Egypt
- Australian Coal Association
- Gujarat Mineral Development Corp Ltd - India
- Bhushan Steel Limited - India
- Mercator Lines Limited - India
- Power Finance Corporation Ltd., India
- GAC Shipping (India) Pvt Ltd
- International Coal Ventures Pvt Ltd - India
- Antam Resourcindo - Indonesia
- Jaiprakash Power Ventures ltd
- Ceylon Electricity Board - Sri Lanka
- Indonesian Coal Mining Association
- GMR Energy Limited - India
- Bukit Baiduri Energy - Indonesia
- Wilmar Investment Holdings
- Ministry of Finance - Indonesia
- Sarangani Energy Corporation, Philippines
- Standard Chartered Bank - UAE
- Eastern Coal Council - USA
- Port Waratah Coal Services - Australia
- Wood Mackenzie - Singapore
- Aditya Birla Group - India
- Kartika Selabumi Mining - Indonesia
- Vijayanagar Sugar Pvt Ltd - India
- ASAPP Information Group - India
- Karaikal Port Pvt Ltd - India
- MS Steel International - UAE
- PowerSource Philippines DevCo
- OPG Power Generation Pvt Ltd - India
- Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd - Australia
- Intertek Mineral Services - Indonesia
- Sakthi Sugars Limited - India
- Bukit Asam (Persero) Tbk - Indonesia
- Chettinad Cement Corporation Ltd - India
- PetroVietnam Power Coal Import and Supply Company
- Central Java Power - Indonesia
- Uttam Galva Steels Limited - India
- Edison Trading Spa - Italy
- Attock Cement Pakistan Limited
- Alfred C Toepfer International GmbH - Germany
- Price Waterhouse Coopers - Russia
- White Energy Company Limited
- Ind-Barath Power Infra Limited - India
- Anglo American - United Kingdom
- TeaM Sual Corporation - Philippines
- Electricity Authority, New Zealand
- Toyota Tsusho Corporation, Japan
- Riau Bara Harum - Indonesia
- PTC India Limited - India
- Pendopo Energi Batubara - Indonesia
- Romanian Commodities Exchange
- Bank of Tokyo Mitsubishi UFJ Ltd
- Billiton Holdings Pty Ltd - Australia
- Jindal Steel & Power Ltd - India
- Bayan Resources Tbk. - Indonesia
- Chamber of Mines of South Africa
- Kapuas Tunggal Persada - Indonesia
- Parliament of New Zealand
- Latin American Coal - Colombia
- SMC Global Power, Philippines
- Maheswari Brothers Coal Limited - India
- Georgia Ports Authority, United States
- Ambuja Cements Ltd - India
- Merrill Lynch Commodities Europe
- Indika Energy - Indonesia
- Baramulti Group, Indonesia
- Miang Besar Coal Terminal - Indonesia
- Marubeni Corporation - India
- Dalmia Cement Bharat India
- Jorong Barutama Greston.PT - Indonesia
- SMG Consultants - Indonesia
- McConnell Dowell - Australia
- Offshore Bulk Terminal Pte Ltd, Singapore
- Bangladesh Power Developement Board
- Directorate General of MIneral and Coal - Indonesia
- Salva Resources Pvt Ltd - India
- Siam City Cement PLC, Thailand
- Australian Commodity Traders Exchange
- Energy Development Corp, Philippines
- Formosa Plastics Group - Taiwan
- The State Trading Corporation of India Ltd
- Karbindo Abesyapradhi - Indoneisa
- CIMB Investment Bank - Malaysia
- Medco Energi Mining Internasional
- South Luzon Thermal Energy Corporation
- IEA Clean Coal Centre - UK
- Kepco SPC Power Corporation, Philippines
- Cement Manufacturers Association - India
- Indian Energy Exchange, India
- Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited - India
|
| |
| |
|
