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.
|
|
Wednesday, 31 January 24
CHINA'S INNER MONGOLIA COAL OUTPUT HIT 1.21B TONS IN 2023 - XINHUA
North China’s Inner Mongolia autonomous region churned out 1.21 billion tons of coal in 2023 as it strives to guarantee the country’s e ...
Wednesday, 31 January 24
GAS EXPORTS COST U.S. CONSUMERS MORE THAN $100 BILLION OVER 16-MONTH PERIOD - IEEFA
Limited Demand Growth Could Dampen the Dry Bulk Market in the Coming Months BIMCOStarting in late 2021—before its invasion of Ukraine—R ...
Tuesday, 30 January 24
LIMITED DEMAND GROWTH COULD DAMPEN THE DRY BULK MARKET IN THE COMING MONTHS - BIMCO
Demand
In our base scenario, we expect cargo demand to grow by 0-1% in 2024 and 0.5-1.5% in 2025. This is a 0.5 percentage point reduction for ...
Friday, 26 January 24
RED SEA DIVERSIONS ADD NEARLY A MILLION DOLLARS PER VOYAGE TO SHIPPING COSTS WHILE DOUBLING TRANSIT TIME - LSEG
The incremental costs of diverting a tanker from Asia to NW Europe via the Cape of Good Hope is accounting for an extra $932,905 USD per voyage whi ...
Friday, 26 January 24
HARD COAL GUARDIAN ANGEL OF THE ENERGY SUPPLY - GERMANY COAL IMPORTERS ASSOCIATION
- No security of supply without hard coal
- The Substitute Power Plant Provision Act (EKBG) must be extended
- Higher grid fees due to the ...
|
|
|
Showing 46 to 50 news of total 6871 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
 |
|
|
| |
|
- Indika Energy - Indonesia
- Agrawal Coal Company - India
- The University of Queensland
- Gujarat Sidhee Cement - India
- Directorate General of MIneral and Coal - Indonesia
- Wood Mackenzie - Singapore
- Energy Development Corp, Philippines
- International Coal Ventures Pvt Ltd - India
- Carbofer General Trading SA - India
- SN Aboitiz Power Inc, Philippines
- Lanco Infratech Ltd - India
- Therma Luzon, Inc, Philippines
- Cigading International Bulk Terminal - Indonesia
- Ind-Barath Power Infra Limited - India
- Kohat Cement Company Ltd. - Pakistan
- Deloitte Consulting - India
- Orica Mining Services - Indonesia
- Indogreen Group - Indonesia
- Eastern Energy - Thailand
- Bayan Resources Tbk. - Indonesia
- Dalmia Cement Bharat India
- Merrill Lynch Commodities Europe
- Posco Energy - South Korea
- Indian Energy Exchange, India
- Bhoruka Overseas - Indonesia
- Minerals Council of Australia
- Pipit Mutiara Jaya. PT, Indonesia
- White Energy Company Limited
- PowerSource Philippines DevCo
- The Treasury - Australian Government
- Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited - India
- Global Green Power PLC Corporation, Philippines
- Coalindo Energy - Indonesia
- Parliament of New Zealand
- Salva Resources Pvt Ltd - India
- Oldendorff Carriers - Singapore
- Sindya Power Generating Company Private Ltd
- Toyota Tsusho Corporation, Japan
- Globalindo Alam Lestari - Indonesia
- McConnell Dowell - Australia
- Uttam Galva Steels Limited - India
- Riau Bara Harum - Indonesia
- Australian Commodity Traders Exchange
- Holcim Trading Pte Ltd - Singapore
- Mercator Lines Limited - India
- Dong Bac Coal Mineral Investment Coporation - Vietnam
- Antam Resourcindo - Indonesia
- Sical Logistics Limited - India
- GN Power Mariveles Coal Plant, Philippines
- Aboitiz Power Corporation - Philippines
- Port Waratah Coal Services - Australia
- London Commodity Brokers - England
- Chettinad Cement Corporation Ltd - India
- Ceylon Electricity Board - Sri Lanka
- Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission - India
- Bahari Cakrawala Sebuku - Indonesia
- Filglen & Citicon Mining (HK) Ltd - Hong Kong
- Meralco Power Generation, Philippines
- Offshore Bulk Terminal Pte Ltd, Singapore
- PTC India Limited - India
- ASAPP Information Group - India
- Sinarmas Energy and Mining - Indonesia
- San Jose City I Power Corp, Philippines
- Dr Ramakrishna Prasad Power Pvt Ltd - India
- Goldman Sachs - Singapore
- Wilmar Investment Holdings
- Coastal Gujarat Power Limited - India
- Interocean Group of Companies - India
- Global Coal Blending Company Limited - Australia
- Kideco Jaya Agung - Indonesia
- Bhatia International Limited - India
- Jindal Steel & Power Ltd - India
- Orica Australia Pty. Ltd.
- South Luzon Thermal Energy Corporation
- Anglo American - United Kingdom
- Trasteel International SA, Italy
- Larsen & Toubro Limited - India
- Coal and Oil Company - UAE
- Price Waterhouse Coopers - Russia
- Miang Besar Coal Terminal - Indonesia
- Marubeni Corporation - India
- Thai Mozambique Logistica
- Kartika Selabumi Mining - Indonesia
- Ambuja Cements Ltd - India
- Kepco SPC Power Corporation, Philippines
- Kaltim Prima Coal - Indonesia
- Latin American Coal - Colombia
- Vedanta Resources Plc - India
- Commonwealth Bank - Australia
- Simpson Spence & Young - Indonesia
- Vijayanagar Sugar Pvt Ltd - India
- Energy Link Ltd, New Zealand
- Timah Investasi Mineral - Indoneisa
- MS Steel International - UAE
- Bukit Baiduri Energy - Indonesia
- Siam City Cement - Thailand
- GMR Energy Limited - India
- Directorate Of Revenue Intelligence - India
- Kalimantan Lumbung Energi - Indonesia
- New Zealand Coal & Carbon
- The State Trading Corporation of India Ltd
- Cement Manufacturers Association - India
- ICICI Bank Limited - India
- TNB Fuel Sdn Bhd - Malaysia
- Attock Cement Pakistan Limited
- Ministry of Finance - Indonesia
- LBH Netherlands Bv - Netherlands
- Sarangani Energy Corporation, Philippines
- Bukit Asam (Persero) Tbk - Indonesia
- IHS Mccloskey Coal Group - USA
- Romanian Commodities Exchange
- OPG Power Generation Pvt Ltd - India
- Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd - Australia
- Grasim Industreis Ltd - India
- Petrochimia International Co. Ltd.- Taiwan
- Georgia Ports Authority, United States
- Sakthi Sugars Limited - India
- Australian Coal Association
- Alfred C Toepfer International GmbH - Germany
- Bhushan Steel Limited - India
- Intertek Mineral Services - Indonesia
- Siam City Cement PLC, Thailand
- Kapuas Tunggal Persada - Indonesia
- Thiess Contractors Indonesia
- Pendopo Energi Batubara - Indonesia
- Mjunction Services Limited - India
- Billiton Holdings Pty Ltd - Australia
- Africa Commodities Group - South Africa
- Videocon Industries ltd - India
- Planning Commission, India
- Singapore Mercantile Exchange
- Indo Tambangraya Megah - Indonesia
- Star Paper Mills Limited - India
- Tata Chemicals Ltd - India
- Barasentosa Lestari - Indonesia
- Tamil Nadu electricity Board
- Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand
- Electricity Authority, New Zealand
- Global Business Power Corporation, Philippines
- Mintek Dendrill Indonesia
- Aditya Birla Group - India
- SMG Consultants - Indonesia
- Kumho Petrochemical, South Korea
- Banpu Public Company Limited - Thailand
- Sree Jayajothi Cements Limited - India
- Madhucon Powers Ltd - India
- GAC Shipping (India) Pvt Ltd
- Asia Pacific Energy Resources Ventures Inc, Philippines
- Standard Chartered Bank - UAE
- Renaissance Capital - South Africa
- Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission - India
- Savvy Resources Ltd - HongKong
- Karaikal Port Pvt Ltd - India
- Bulk Trading Sa - Switzerland
- Medco Energi Mining Internasional
- Karbindo Abesyapradhi - Indoneisa
- Heidelberg Cement - Germany
- Mercuria Energy - Indonesia
- Baramulti Group, Indonesia
- Rio Tinto Coal - Australia
- Independent Power Producers Association of India
- Power Finance Corporation Ltd., India
- VISA Power Limited - India
- SMC Global Power, Philippines
- Semirara Mining Corp, Philippines
- Formosa Plastics Group - Taiwan
- Metalloyd Limited - United Kingdom
- Truba Alam Manunggal Engineering.Tbk - Indonesia
- Xindia Steels Limited - India
- Petron Corporation, Philippines
- Economic Council, Georgia
- CNBM International Corporation - China
- European Bulk Services B.V. - Netherlands
- Semirara Mining and Power Corporation, Philippines
- Jorong Barutama Greston.PT - Indonesia
- Binh Thuan Hamico - Vietnam
- PetroVietnam Power Coal Import and Supply Company
- Manunggal Multi Energi - Indonesia
- Ministry of Transport, Egypt
- Asmin Koalindo Tuhup - Indonesia
- Bangladesh Power Developement Board
- India Bulls Power Limited - India
- CIMB Investment Bank - Malaysia
- Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd, - India
- Eastern Coal Council - USA
- Ministry of Mines - Canada
- Bharathi Cement Corporation - India
- Jaiprakash Power Ventures ltd
- Kobexindo Tractors - Indoneisa
- PNOC Exploration Corporation - Philippines
- GVK Power & Infra Limited - India
- Central Java Power - Indonesia
- Samtan Co., Ltd - South Korea
- Indian Oil Corporation Limited
- IEA Clean Coal Centre - UK
- Indonesian Coal Mining Association
- Chamber of Mines of South Africa
- Essar Steel Hazira Ltd - India
- Iligan Light & Power Inc, Philippines
- Sojitz Corporation - Japan
- Altura Mining Limited, Indonesia
- Borneo Indobara - Indonesia
- Meenaskhi Energy Private Limited - India
- Gujarat Mineral Development Corp Ltd - India
- TeaM Sual Corporation - Philippines
- Parry Sugars Refinery, India
- Vizag Seaport Private Limited - India
- Edison Trading Spa - Italy
- Malabar Cements Ltd - India
- Bukit Makmur.PT - Indonesia
- Maheswari Brothers Coal Limited - India
- Makarim & Taira - Indonesia
- Central Electricity Authority - India
- Straits Asia Resources Limited - Singapore
- Krishnapatnam Port Company Ltd. - India
- Bank of Tokyo Mitsubishi UFJ Ltd
- AsiaOL BioFuels Corp., Philippines
|
| |
| |
|
