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 September 24
REBOUND IN OIL DEMAND COULD LIFT MARKET IN LATTER HALF OF 2024 - BIMCO
Supply/demand
Based on a strong second half demand, the supply/balance is forecast to strengthen in 2024 but weaken slightly in 2025 as n ...
Friday, 06 September 24
GLOBAL SEABORNE LNG TRADE HAS CONTINUED TO INCREASE LAST YEAR - BANCHERO COSTA
Global seaborne LNG trade has continued to increase last year, helped also by the events in Ukraine which forced Europe to diversify away from Russ ...
Wednesday, 28 August 24
SEABORNE COAL IMPORTS INTO INDIA INCREASED BY +9.9% Y-O-Y TO 146.6 MLN T - BANCHERO COSTA
Global coal trade has really picked up pace over the past year, and is now fully back to pre-Covid levels said Banchero Costa Research in its lates ...
Tuesday, 06 August 24
EXERCISE CAUTION WITH AMMONIA SWITCH - BALTIC EXCHANGE
A new study from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) has thrown a spanner into the plan to transition ships from diesel fuel to ammonia ...
Friday, 02 August 24
ENERGY MARKET DEVELOPMENTS: COAL AND NATURAL GAS PRICES REACH RECORD HIGHS - WORLD BANK
The recent surge in natural gas and coal prices has been so swift that the main benchmarks were roughly three times higher in 2022Q2 compared to a ...
|
|
|
Showing 1 to 5 news of total 6871 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
 |
|
|
| |
|
- Offshore Bulk Terminal Pte Ltd, Singapore
- Formosa Plastics Group - Taiwan
- Commonwealth Bank - Australia
- Altura Mining Limited, Indonesia
- Indika Energy - Indonesia
- Maheswari Brothers Coal Limited - India
- Ind-Barath Power Infra Limited - India
- OPG Power Generation Pvt Ltd - India
- Kepco SPC Power Corporation, Philippines
- Star Paper Mills Limited - India
- The University of Queensland
- Minerals Council of Australia
- Petron Corporation, Philippines
- Krishnapatnam Port Company Ltd. - India
- London Commodity Brokers - England
- Marubeni Corporation - India
- AsiaOL BioFuels Corp., Philippines
- Independent Power Producers Association of India
- Bhatia International Limited - India
- Coalindo Energy - Indonesia
- Oldendorff Carriers - Singapore
- Global Coal Blending Company Limited - Australia
- Bayan Resources Tbk. - Indonesia
- Pipit Mutiara Jaya. PT, Indonesia
- Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission - India
- Central Java Power - Indonesia
- Mercuria Energy - Indonesia
- Bhushan Steel Limited - India
- Indian Oil Corporation Limited
- Kohat Cement Company Ltd. - Pakistan
- Gujarat Mineral Development Corp Ltd - India
- Kumho Petrochemical, South Korea
- Dong Bac Coal Mineral Investment Coporation - Vietnam
- PTC India Limited - India
- Aboitiz Power Corporation - Philippines
- Grasim Industreis Ltd - India
- Filglen & Citicon Mining (HK) Ltd - Hong Kong
- Indonesian Coal Mining Association
- Meenaskhi Energy Private Limited - India
- PowerSource Philippines DevCo
- CNBM International Corporation - China
- Sarangani Energy Corporation, Philippines
- San Jose City I Power Corp, Philippines
- Bank of Tokyo Mitsubishi UFJ Ltd
- Agrawal Coal Company - India
- Directorate Of Revenue Intelligence - India
- Sindya Power Generating Company Private Ltd
- CIMB Investment Bank - Malaysia
- Directorate General of MIneral and Coal - Indonesia
- Coal and Oil Company - UAE
- Merrill Lynch Commodities Europe
- Indo Tambangraya Megah - Indonesia
- Asia Pacific Energy Resources Ventures Inc, Philippines
- Mjunction Services Limited - India
- Samtan Co., Ltd - South Korea
- IHS Mccloskey Coal Group - USA
- Straits Asia Resources Limited - Singapore
- SMC Global Power, Philippines
- Metalloyd Limited - United Kingdom
- Toyota Tsusho Corporation, Japan
- Rio Tinto Coal - Australia
- Barasentosa Lestari - Indonesia
- Bukit Asam (Persero) Tbk - Indonesia
- Lanco Infratech Ltd - India
- Gujarat Sidhee Cement - India
- Bhoruka Overseas - Indonesia
- Wood Mackenzie - Singapore
- Tata Chemicals Ltd - India
- Semirara Mining and Power Corporation, Philippines
- Ministry of Mines - Canada
- SMG Consultants - Indonesia
- Tamil Nadu electricity Board
- Standard Chartered Bank - UAE
- Edison Trading Spa - Italy
- Singapore Mercantile Exchange
- Karbindo Abesyapradhi - Indoneisa
- Chamber of Mines of South Africa
- Siam City Cement PLC, Thailand
- The Treasury - Australian Government
- Eastern Coal Council - USA
- Port Waratah Coal Services - Australia
- Jindal Steel & Power Ltd - India
- Timah Investasi Mineral - Indoneisa
- Riau Bara Harum - Indonesia
- India Bulls Power Limited - India
- White Energy Company Limited
- Banpu Public Company Limited - Thailand
- Xindia Steels Limited - India
- New Zealand Coal & Carbon
- Medco Energi Mining Internasional
- Bangladesh Power Developement Board
- Thiess Contractors Indonesia
- Pendopo Energi Batubara - Indonesia
- Semirara Mining Corp, Philippines
- Chettinad Cement Corporation Ltd - India
- Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited - India
- Aditya Birla Group - India
- Global Green Power PLC Corporation, Philippines
- Madhucon Powers Ltd - India
- Indogreen Group - Indonesia
- IEA Clean Coal Centre - UK
- Cement Manufacturers Association - India
- Mercator Lines Limited - India
- Global Business Power Corporation, Philippines
- Ambuja Cements Ltd - India
- Larsen & Toubro Limited - India
- Videocon Industries ltd - India
- GN Power Mariveles Coal Plant, Philippines
- Attock Cement Pakistan Limited
- Cigading International Bulk Terminal - Indonesia
- Africa Commodities Group - South Africa
- TeaM Sual Corporation - Philippines
- Deloitte Consulting - India
- Essar Steel Hazira Ltd - India
- Energy Link Ltd, New Zealand
- Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission - India
- McConnell Dowell - Australia
- Simpson Spence & Young - Indonesia
- Indian Energy Exchange, India
- Antam Resourcindo - Indonesia
- Economic Council, Georgia
- Vijayanagar Sugar Pvt Ltd - India
- Ceylon Electricity Board - Sri Lanka
- Karaikal Port Pvt Ltd - India
- Renaissance Capital - South Africa
- Meralco Power Generation, Philippines
- Planning Commission, India
- Bahari Cakrawala Sebuku - Indonesia
- ICICI Bank Limited - India
- Central Electricity Authority - India
- Sinarmas Energy and Mining - Indonesia
- Dr Ramakrishna Prasad Power Pvt Ltd - India
- Ministry of Finance - Indonesia
- The State Trading Corporation of India Ltd
- Makarim & Taira - Indonesia
- Intertek Mineral Services - Indonesia
- GAC Shipping (India) Pvt Ltd
- Dalmia Cement Bharat India
- TNB Fuel Sdn Bhd - Malaysia
- Uttam Galva Steels Limited - India
- Coastal Gujarat Power Limited - India
- Manunggal Multi Energi - Indonesia
- Bukit Makmur.PT - Indonesia
- Orica Mining Services - Indonesia
- Carbofer General Trading SA - India
- LBH Netherlands Bv - Netherlands
- Price Waterhouse Coopers - Russia
- Latin American Coal - Colombia
- South Luzon Thermal Energy Corporation
- Savvy Resources Ltd - HongKong
- Mintek Dendrill Indonesia
- Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand
- Therma Luzon, Inc, Philippines
- Ministry of Transport, Egypt
- Salva Resources Pvt Ltd - India
- ASAPP Information Group - India
- Bharathi Cement Corporation - India
- Sree Jayajothi Cements Limited - India
- Bukit Baiduri Energy - Indonesia
- GVK Power & Infra Limited - India
- Petrochimia International Co. Ltd.- Taiwan
- Miang Besar Coal Terminal - Indonesia
- Trasteel International SA, Italy
- GMR Energy Limited - India
- Truba Alam Manunggal Engineering.Tbk - Indonesia
- PNOC Exploration Corporation - Philippines
- Globalindo Alam Lestari - Indonesia
- Bulk Trading Sa - Switzerland
- Wilmar Investment Holdings
- Anglo American - United Kingdom
- Alfred C Toepfer International GmbH - Germany
- Sical Logistics Limited - India
- Kalimantan Lumbung Energi - Indonesia
- Kobexindo Tractors - Indoneisa
- Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd - Australia
- Siam City Cement - Thailand
- Borneo Indobara - Indonesia
- Australian Commodity Traders Exchange
- Kapuas Tunggal Persada - Indonesia
- Jaiprakash Power Ventures ltd
- International Coal Ventures Pvt Ltd - India
- MS Steel International - UAE
- Billiton Holdings Pty Ltd - Australia
- Sojitz Corporation - Japan
- Orica Australia Pty. Ltd.
- Kaltim Prima Coal - Indonesia
- Thai Mozambique Logistica
- Electricity Authority, New Zealand
- Holcim Trading Pte Ltd - Singapore
- Kideco Jaya Agung - Indonesia
- Power Finance Corporation Ltd., India
- Sakthi Sugars Limited - India
- Georgia Ports Authority, United States
- SN Aboitiz Power Inc, Philippines
- Vedanta Resources Plc - India
- Heidelberg Cement - Germany
- Eastern Energy - Thailand
- Parliament of New Zealand
- Goldman Sachs - Singapore
- VISA Power Limited - India
- Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd, - India
- Asmin Koalindo Tuhup - Indonesia
- Binh Thuan Hamico - Vietnam
- PetroVietnam Power Coal Import and Supply Company
- Posco Energy - South Korea
- Australian Coal Association
- Interocean Group of Companies - India
- Vizag Seaport Private Limited - India
- Malabar Cements Ltd - India
- Parry Sugars Refinery, India
- Jorong Barutama Greston.PT - Indonesia
- European Bulk Services B.V. - Netherlands
- Kartika Selabumi Mining - Indonesia
- Energy Development Corp, Philippines
- Romanian Commodities Exchange
- Iligan Light & Power Inc, Philippines
- Baramulti Group, Indonesia
|
| |
| |
|
1 