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, 26 May 14
Q3 14 CFR SOUTH CHINA COAL SWAPS LOST 2.24% MONTH ON MONTH
COALspot.com: API 8 CFR South China Coal swaps for average Q3 14 deliveries lost 2.24 percent month on month and closed at US$ 73.88 per mt as on F ...
Monday, 26 May 14
NEWBUILDING ORDERING ACTIVITY RISES BY 78% IN DWT TONNAGE OVER THE FIRST 4 MONTHS OF THE YEARS, AS OWNERS INVEST$40.5 BN - NIKOS ROUSSANOGLOU, HELLENIC SHIPPING NEWS
Ship owners have plunged into newbuilding orders during the first four months of the year, as overall newbuilding business ended for the first four ...
Sunday, 25 May 14
FREIGHT RATES FROM SOUTH KALIMANTAN TO EAST COAST INDIAN PORTS WERE ASSESSED AT $9.50/MT
COALspot.com: The BDI was closed at 964 points down by 6.13 pct week on week. The Cape Index was lost 172 points or 11.24% week on week and closing ...
Saturday, 24 May 14
DRY BULK MARKET'S RECOVERY IS JUST AROUND THE CORNER SAYS SHIPOWNER - NIKOS ROUSSANOGLOU, HELLENIC SHIPPING NEWS
Despite the weaker than expected market sentiment in the dry bulk market over the course of the past few months, analysts and shipowners alike appe ...
Friday, 23 May 14
U.S. WEEKLY COAL PRODUCTION SLIPS 1.8% WEEK ENDED MAY 17, 2014
COALspot.com – United States the world's second largest coal producer, produced approximately 18.6 million short tons (mmst) of coal in a ...
|
|
|
Showing 3686 to 3690 news of total 6871 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
 |
|
|
| |
|
- Ind-Barath Power Infra Limited - India
- Antam Resourcindo - Indonesia
- Sarangani Energy Corporation, Philippines
- Toyota Tsusho Corporation, Japan
- Borneo Indobara - Indonesia
- GVK Power & Infra Limited - India
- AsiaOL BioFuels Corp., Philippines
- Maheswari Brothers Coal Limited - India
- Grasim Industreis Ltd - India
- PNOC Exploration Corporation - Philippines
- Krishnapatnam Port Company Ltd. - India
- Wilmar Investment Holdings
- Central Java Power - Indonesia
- Global Coal Blending Company Limited - Australia
- Directorate General of MIneral and Coal - Indonesia
- Orica Mining Services - Indonesia
- SN Aboitiz Power Inc, Philippines
- Trasteel International SA, Italy
- Jorong Barutama Greston.PT - Indonesia
- Anglo American - United Kingdom
- Coastal Gujarat Power Limited - India
- CIMB Investment Bank - Malaysia
- PetroVietnam Power Coal Import and Supply Company
- Manunggal Multi Energi - Indonesia
- Carbofer General Trading SA - India
- TeaM Sual Corporation - Philippines
- CNBM International Corporation - China
- Savvy Resources Ltd - HongKong
- Coalindo Energy - Indonesia
- Petrochimia International Co. Ltd.- Taiwan
- Malabar Cements Ltd - India
- Xindia Steels Limited - India
- Price Waterhouse Coopers - Russia
- Wood Mackenzie - Singapore
- Ambuja Cements Ltd - India
- IEA Clean Coal Centre - UK
- Africa Commodities Group - South Africa
- Indian Energy Exchange, India
- Georgia Ports Authority, United States
- Indogreen Group - Indonesia
- London Commodity Brokers - England
- Sojitz Corporation - Japan
- Globalindo Alam Lestari - Indonesia
- Binh Thuan Hamico - Vietnam
- GN Power Mariveles Coal Plant, Philippines
- Directorate Of Revenue Intelligence - India
- Thai Mozambique Logistica
- Riau Bara Harum - Indonesia
- Rio Tinto Coal - Australia
- GAC Shipping (India) Pvt Ltd
- Cement Manufacturers Association - India
- The University of Queensland
- Mintek Dendrill Indonesia
- International Coal Ventures Pvt Ltd - India
- Asmin Koalindo Tuhup - Indonesia
- Cigading International Bulk Terminal - Indonesia
- White Energy Company Limited
- Alfred C Toepfer International GmbH - Germany
- Electricity Authority, New Zealand
- Sical Logistics Limited - India
- Kideco Jaya Agung - Indonesia
- Straits Asia Resources Limited - Singapore
- GMR Energy Limited - India
- Interocean Group of Companies - India
- Kohat Cement Company Ltd. - Pakistan
- Ceylon Electricity Board - Sri Lanka
- Miang Besar Coal Terminal - Indonesia
- Economic Council, Georgia
- Indonesian Coal Mining Association
- Makarim & Taira - Indonesia
- Metalloyd Limited - United Kingdom
- Energy Development Corp, Philippines
- Port Waratah Coal Services - Australia
- Kobexindo Tractors - Indoneisa
- Power Finance Corporation Ltd., India
- Attock Cement Pakistan Limited
- Indian Oil Corporation Limited
- Bulk Trading Sa - Switzerland
- Simpson Spence & Young - Indonesia
- Meralco Power Generation, Philippines
- Thiess Contractors Indonesia
- Asia Pacific Energy Resources Ventures Inc, Philippines
- Latin American Coal - Colombia
- PowerSource Philippines DevCo
- The State Trading Corporation of India Ltd
- ASAPP Information Group - India
- Jaiprakash Power Ventures ltd
- LBH Netherlands Bv - Netherlands
- Kartika Selabumi Mining - Indonesia
- Bukit Makmur.PT - Indonesia
- Offshore Bulk Terminal Pte Ltd, Singapore
- Deloitte Consulting - India
- Romanian Commodities Exchange
- Billiton Holdings Pty Ltd - Australia
- Indo Tambangraya Megah - Indonesia
- Dr Ramakrishna Prasad Power Pvt Ltd - India
- Standard Chartered Bank - UAE
- Gujarat Mineral Development Corp Ltd - India
- Kumho Petrochemical, South Korea
- Sindya Power Generating Company Private Ltd
- Aditya Birla Group - India
- Eastern Coal Council - USA
- Sinarmas Energy and Mining - Indonesia
- Bukit Baiduri Energy - Indonesia
- Siam City Cement PLC, Thailand
- Vedanta Resources Plc - India
- Filglen & Citicon Mining (HK) Ltd - Hong Kong
- Mercator Lines Limited - India
- Marubeni Corporation - India
- Salva Resources Pvt Ltd - India
- Star Paper Mills Limited - India
- Parry Sugars Refinery, India
- MS Steel International - UAE
- Formosa Plastics Group - Taiwan
- Ministry of Mines - Canada
- VISA Power Limited - India
- Singapore Mercantile Exchange
- Agrawal Coal Company - India
- Petron Corporation, Philippines
- ICICI Bank Limited - India
- Bank of Tokyo Mitsubishi UFJ Ltd
- Global Green Power PLC Corporation, Philippines
- Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd, - India
- Uttam Galva Steels Limited - India
- Banpu Public Company Limited - Thailand
- Timah Investasi Mineral - Indoneisa
- Videocon Industries ltd - India
- Intertek Mineral Services - Indonesia
- Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission - India
- Heidelberg Cement - Germany
- Sakthi Sugars Limited - India
- Planning Commission, India
- Energy Link Ltd, New Zealand
- European Bulk Services B.V. - Netherlands
- Mercuria Energy - Indonesia
- Samtan Co., Ltd - South Korea
- Mjunction Services Limited - India
- Goldman Sachs - Singapore
- Merrill Lynch Commodities Europe
- Kaltim Prima Coal - Indonesia
- Semirara Mining Corp, Philippines
- Larsen & Toubro Limited - India
- Australian Coal Association
- Baramulti Group, Indonesia
- Dong Bac Coal Mineral Investment Coporation - Vietnam
- Meenaskhi Energy Private Limited - India
- New Zealand Coal & Carbon
- The Treasury - Australian Government
- South Luzon Thermal Energy Corporation
- Central Electricity Authority - India
- India Bulls Power Limited - India
- Kalimantan Lumbung Energi - Indonesia
- Sree Jayajothi Cements Limited - India
- Bangladesh Power Developement Board
- Edison Trading Spa - Italy
- Oldendorff Carriers - Singapore
- Parliament of New Zealand
- Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission - India
- Therma Luzon, Inc, Philippines
- Holcim Trading Pte Ltd - Singapore
- Ministry of Transport, Egypt
- Australian Commodity Traders Exchange
- San Jose City I Power Corp, Philippines
- IHS Mccloskey Coal Group - USA
- Semirara Mining and Power Corporation, Philippines
- Commonwealth Bank - Australia
- Minerals Council of Australia
- Truba Alam Manunggal Engineering.Tbk - Indonesia
- Aboitiz Power Corporation - Philippines
- Posco Energy - South Korea
- Eastern Energy - Thailand
- Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand
- SMG Consultants - Indonesia
- Pendopo Energi Batubara - Indonesia
- Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited - India
- OPG Power Generation Pvt Ltd - India
- McConnell Dowell - Australia
- Karbindo Abesyapradhi - Indoneisa
- Essar Steel Hazira Ltd - India
- Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd - Australia
- Vizag Seaport Private Limited - India
- Ministry of Finance - Indonesia
- Dalmia Cement Bharat India
- Vijayanagar Sugar Pvt Ltd - India
- Gujarat Sidhee Cement - India
- Global Business Power Corporation, Philippines
- Altura Mining Limited, Indonesia
- Coal and Oil Company - UAE
- Medco Energi Mining Internasional
- PTC India Limited - India
- TNB Fuel Sdn Bhd - Malaysia
- Renaissance Capital - South Africa
- Kepco SPC Power Corporation, Philippines
- SMC Global Power, Philippines
- Tamil Nadu electricity Board
- Barasentosa Lestari - Indonesia
- Iligan Light & Power Inc, Philippines
- Lanco Infratech Ltd - India
- Bhushan Steel Limited - India
- Karaikal Port Pvt Ltd - India
- Siam City Cement - Thailand
- Bayan Resources Tbk. - Indonesia
- Independent Power Producers Association of India
- Kapuas Tunggal Persada - Indonesia
- Jindal Steel & Power Ltd - India
- Bahari Cakrawala Sebuku - Indonesia
- Pipit Mutiara Jaya. PT, Indonesia
- Bukit Asam (Persero) Tbk - Indonesia
- Bharathi Cement Corporation - India
- Bhoruka Overseas - Indonesia
- Chettinad Cement Corporation Ltd - India
- Orica Australia Pty. Ltd.
- Indika Energy - Indonesia
- Bhatia International Limited - India
- Chamber of Mines of South Africa
- Madhucon Powers Ltd - India
- Tata Chemicals Ltd - India
|
| |
| |
|
