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.
|
|
Thursday, 25 January 24
THE RED SEA ESCALATION IMPLICATIONS ON GLOBAL SEABORNE TRADE - MARIA BERTZELETOU
In recent days, discussions have intensified about the potential impact on the seaborne trade and ton-miles due to the evolving dynamics of market ...
Thursday, 25 January 24
RED SEA SHIPPING DISRUPTIONS KEEP GEOPOLITICAL PREMIUM FOR COMMODITIES - FITCH RATINGS
Shipping disruptions and re-routing away from the Red Sea will maintain the geopolitical premium in the main commodity markets, including for oil a ...
Friday, 19 January 24
INDONESIA TARGETS 710 MLN METRIC TONS COAL OUTPUT IN 2024 AFTER RECORD 2023 - REUTERS
Indonesia, a major thermal coal exporter, aims to produce 710 million metric tons of coal in 2024, its mining minister said on Monday, after postin ...
Friday, 19 January 24
DRUMMOND COLOMBIA COAL OUTPUT ROSE 7.1% IN 2023 - REUTERS
Coal production from miner Drummond’s Colombia operations rose 7.1% in 2023 to 29.5 million metric tons, while exports declined by 2.6% to 27 ...
Friday, 19 January 24
CHINA'S 2023 COAL OUTPUT HITS RECORD HIGH - REUTERS
China’s coal output reached a record high in 2023, data from the statistics bureau showed on Wednesday, amid an ongoing focus on energy secur ...
|
|
|
Showing 51 to 55 news of total 6871 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
 |
|
|
| |
|
- Kartika Selabumi Mining - Indonesia
- Kapuas Tunggal Persada - Indonesia
- Grasim Industreis Ltd - India
- Bukit Asam (Persero) Tbk - Indonesia
- Toyota Tsusho Corporation, Japan
- Bukit Makmur.PT - Indonesia
- Thiess Contractors Indonesia
- Formosa Plastics Group - Taiwan
- AsiaOL BioFuels Corp., Philippines
- TeaM Sual Corporation - Philippines
- Mjunction Services Limited - India
- Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd - Australia
- London Commodity Brokers - England
- Indonesian Coal Mining Association
- Jindal Steel & Power Ltd - India
- Kideco Jaya Agung - Indonesia
- Indika Energy - Indonesia
- Bahari Cakrawala Sebuku - Indonesia
- Lanco Infratech Ltd - India
- Miang Besar Coal Terminal - Indonesia
- Sical Logistics Limited - India
- Aditya Birla Group - India
- International Coal Ventures Pvt Ltd - India
- Petron Corporation, Philippines
- Minerals Council of Australia
- Georgia Ports Authority, United States
- Vizag Seaport Private Limited - India
- Carbofer General Trading SA - India
- Independent Power Producers Association of India
- Indogreen Group - Indonesia
- Asmin Koalindo Tuhup - Indonesia
- Orica Mining Services - Indonesia
- Simpson Spence & Young - Indonesia
- Billiton Holdings Pty Ltd - Australia
- Antam Resourcindo - Indonesia
- Coal and Oil Company - UAE
- Truba Alam Manunggal Engineering.Tbk - Indonesia
- Makarim & Taira - Indonesia
- PTC India Limited - India
- GMR Energy Limited - India
- Sinarmas Energy and Mining - Indonesia
- Tata Chemicals Ltd - India
- Anglo American - United Kingdom
- Vijayanagar Sugar Pvt Ltd - India
- Indo Tambangraya Megah - Indonesia
- Agrawal Coal Company - India
- Orica Australia Pty. Ltd.
- Larsen & Toubro Limited - India
- Coalindo Energy - Indonesia
- Karbindo Abesyapradhi - Indoneisa
- McConnell Dowell - Australia
- Bukit Baiduri Energy - Indonesia
- Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd, - India
- Australian Commodity Traders Exchange
- Alfred C Toepfer International GmbH - Germany
- Energy Link Ltd, New Zealand
- Ambuja Cements Ltd - India
- Heidelberg Cement - Germany
- Planning Commission, India
- Directorate General of MIneral and Coal - Indonesia
- Uttam Galva Steels Limited - India
- SMC Global Power, Philippines
- Wilmar Investment Holdings
- Meralco Power Generation, Philippines
- Commonwealth Bank - Australia
- Sakthi Sugars Limited - India
- Coastal Gujarat Power Limited - India
- TNB Fuel Sdn Bhd - Malaysia
- Kohat Cement Company Ltd. - Pakistan
- Maheswari Brothers Coal Limited - India
- Barasentosa Lestari - Indonesia
- South Luzon Thermal Energy Corporation
- Kepco SPC Power Corporation, Philippines
- Deloitte Consulting - India
- Iligan Light & Power Inc, Philippines
- PNOC Exploration Corporation - Philippines
- Semirara Mining Corp, Philippines
- Dalmia Cement Bharat India
- Dr Ramakrishna Prasad Power Pvt Ltd - India
- Straits Asia Resources Limited - Singapore
- Power Finance Corporation Ltd., India
- Pipit Mutiara Jaya. PT, Indonesia
- Therma Luzon, Inc, Philippines
- Attock Cement Pakistan Limited
- Bayan Resources Tbk. - Indonesia
- Australian Coal Association
- Manunggal Multi Energi - Indonesia
- Salva Resources Pvt Ltd - India
- Altura Mining Limited, Indonesia
- Ministry of Transport, Egypt
- Meenaskhi Energy Private Limited - India
- Gujarat Mineral Development Corp Ltd - India
- Thai Mozambique Logistica
- Latin American Coal - Colombia
- Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission - India
- IHS Mccloskey Coal Group - USA
- Energy Development Corp, Philippines
- Globalindo Alam Lestari - Indonesia
- Electricity Authority, New Zealand
- Mercator Lines Limited - India
- Siam City Cement - Thailand
- Global Coal Blending Company Limited - Australia
- Price Waterhouse Coopers - Russia
- The Treasury - Australian Government
- Bhatia International Limited - India
- SMG Consultants - Indonesia
- Bhushan Steel Limited - India
- Kumho Petrochemical, South Korea
- Offshore Bulk Terminal Pte Ltd, Singapore
- India Bulls Power Limited - India
- Kobexindo Tractors - Indoneisa
- Indian Energy Exchange, India
- PowerSource Philippines DevCo
- Sindya Power Generating Company Private Ltd
- Borneo Indobara - Indonesia
- Intertek Mineral Services - Indonesia
- Ministry of Mines - Canada
- Baramulti Group, Indonesia
- Wood Mackenzie - Singapore
- Global Green Power PLC Corporation, Philippines
- Bank of Tokyo Mitsubishi UFJ Ltd
- Cigading International Bulk Terminal - Indonesia
- Sree Jayajothi Cements Limited - India
- ICICI Bank Limited - India
- Ministry of Finance - Indonesia
- Dong Bac Coal Mineral Investment Coporation - Vietnam
- Posco Energy - South Korea
- Semirara Mining and Power Corporation, Philippines
- San Jose City I Power Corp, Philippines
- Bangladesh Power Developement Board
- Goldman Sachs - Singapore
- MS Steel International - UAE
- CNBM International Corporation - China
- Marubeni Corporation - India
- OPG Power Generation Pvt Ltd - India
- Indian Oil Corporation Limited
- Romanian Commodities Exchange
- Chettinad Cement Corporation Ltd - India
- European Bulk Services B.V. - Netherlands
- Samtan Co., Ltd - South Korea
- Karaikal Port Pvt Ltd - India
- Petrochimia International Co. Ltd.- Taiwan
- Standard Chartered Bank - UAE
- Rio Tinto Coal - Australia
- Ceylon Electricity Board - Sri Lanka
- Port Waratah Coal Services - Australia
- Timah Investasi Mineral - Indoneisa
- Parry Sugars Refinery, India
- Banpu Public Company Limited - Thailand
- CIMB Investment Bank - Malaysia
- Vedanta Resources Plc - India
- IEA Clean Coal Centre - UK
- Directorate Of Revenue Intelligence - India
- Medco Energi Mining Internasional
- Krishnapatnam Port Company Ltd. - India
- LBH Netherlands Bv - Netherlands
- GN Power Mariveles Coal Plant, Philippines
- Singapore Mercantile Exchange
- Chamber of Mines of South Africa
- Bharathi Cement Corporation - India
- Sarangani Energy Corporation, Philippines
- Gujarat Sidhee Cement - India
- PetroVietnam Power Coal Import and Supply Company
- Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand
- Xindia Steels Limited - India
- Eastern Coal Council - USA
- Global Business Power Corporation, Philippines
- Madhucon Powers Ltd - India
- Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission - India
- Metalloyd Limited - United Kingdom
- Filglen & Citicon Mining (HK) Ltd - Hong Kong
- Sojitz Corporation - Japan
- Aboitiz Power Corporation - Philippines
- Kaltim Prima Coal - Indonesia
- Tamil Nadu electricity Board
- New Zealand Coal & Carbon
- Videocon Industries ltd - India
- Essar Steel Hazira Ltd - India
- Mercuria Energy - Indonesia
- Holcim Trading Pte Ltd - Singapore
- Asia Pacific Energy Resources Ventures Inc, Philippines
- The State Trading Corporation of India Ltd
- Pendopo Energi Batubara - Indonesia
- White Energy Company Limited
- Savvy Resources Ltd - HongKong
- Riau Bara Harum - Indonesia
- Renaissance Capital - South Africa
- Eastern Energy - Thailand
- Star Paper Mills Limited - India
- Jorong Barutama Greston.PT - Indonesia
- Trasteel International SA, Italy
- GAC Shipping (India) Pvt Ltd
- Jaiprakash Power Ventures ltd
- Economic Council, Georgia
- Mintek Dendrill Indonesia
- Interocean Group of Companies - India
- Africa Commodities Group - South Africa
- Central Electricity Authority - India
- Malabar Cements Ltd - India
- Central Java Power - Indonesia
- VISA Power Limited - India
- Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited - India
- Merrill Lynch Commodities Europe
- Cement Manufacturers Association - India
- SN Aboitiz Power Inc, Philippines
- Ind-Barath Power Infra Limited - India
- The University of Queensland
- Edison Trading Spa - Italy
- Parliament of New Zealand
- Bulk Trading Sa - Switzerland
- Oldendorff Carriers - Singapore
- Bhoruka Overseas - Indonesia
- GVK Power & Infra Limited - India
- Siam City Cement PLC, Thailand
- Kalimantan Lumbung Energi - Indonesia
- Binh Thuan Hamico - Vietnam
- ASAPP Information Group - India
|
| |
| |
|
