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, 05 January 24
BANGLADESH’S 2023 COAL-FIRED POWER OUTPUT TRIPLED, EASING SHORTAGES - REUTERS
Bangladesh nearly tripled its coal-fired power output in 2023, a Reuters analysis of government data showed, helping it tide over the worst power s ...
Tuesday, 02 January 24
COAL TRADE CONTINUES TO HEAD EAST - BALTIC EXCHANGE
The global coal trade, once concentrated in the Pacific and Atlantic basins, is undergoing a significant transformation, as highlighted in the Inte ...
Tuesday, 02 January 24
COAL CARGOES: AVOIDING EXPLOSION AND SELF-HEATING - GARD
KNOWLEDGE TO ELEVATE
Despite its contribution to greenhouse gas emissions, global coal consumption climbed to an all-time high in 2022 and is ...
Tuesday, 02 January 24
SINOPEC FORECASTS CHINA’S COAL CONSUMPTION TO PEAK AROUND 2025 - REUTERS
China Petrochemical Corp, or Sinopec, expects coal consumption to peak around 2025 at 4.37 billion metric tons, the state energy group said in an o ...
Thursday, 07 December 23
CHINA TO SET UP COAL PRODUCTION RESERVE TO STABILISE PRICES - REUTERS
China will establish a back-up coal production system by 2027 to stabilise prices and secure coal supply, the state planner said on Wednesday, even ...
|
|
|
Showing 61 to 65 news of total 6871 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
 |
|
|
| |
|
- Asmin Koalindo Tuhup - Indonesia
- GVK Power & Infra Limited - India
- IHS Mccloskey Coal Group - USA
- Antam Resourcindo - Indonesia
- Malabar Cements Ltd - India
- Jindal Steel & Power Ltd - India
- Kumho Petrochemical, South Korea
- Vijayanagar Sugar Pvt Ltd - India
- Mjunction Services Limited - India
- Australian Coal Association
- European Bulk Services B.V. - Netherlands
- Barasentosa Lestari - Indonesia
- Trasteel International SA, Italy
- SMC Global Power, Philippines
- Altura Mining Limited, Indonesia
- Asia Pacific Energy Resources Ventures Inc, Philippines
- Deloitte Consulting - India
- Planning Commission, India
- Gujarat Mineral Development Corp Ltd - India
- Edison Trading Spa - Italy
- Pipit Mutiara Jaya. PT, Indonesia
- Banpu Public Company Limited - Thailand
- Global Business Power Corporation, Philippines
- Power Finance Corporation Ltd., India
- Commonwealth Bank - Australia
- Petrochimia International Co. Ltd.- Taiwan
- Australian Commodity Traders Exchange
- New Zealand Coal & Carbon
- Miang Besar Coal Terminal - Indonesia
- Globalindo Alam Lestari - Indonesia
- Uttam Galva Steels Limited - India
- Agrawal Coal Company - India
- Romanian Commodities Exchange
- Wilmar Investment Holdings
- Meenaskhi Energy Private Limited - India
- Minerals Council of Australia
- Dong Bac Coal Mineral Investment Coporation - Vietnam
- PNOC Exploration Corporation - Philippines
- Siam City Cement PLC, Thailand
- Semirara Mining and Power Corporation, Philippines
- Riau Bara Harum - Indonesia
- Sindya Power Generating Company Private Ltd
- Toyota Tsusho Corporation, Japan
- Bulk Trading Sa - Switzerland
- Siam City Cement - Thailand
- Sinarmas Energy and Mining - Indonesia
- Madhucon Powers Ltd - India
- Pendopo Energi Batubara - Indonesia
- OPG Power Generation Pvt Ltd - India
- Merrill Lynch Commodities Europe
- Aboitiz Power Corporation - Philippines
- Dalmia Cement Bharat India
- Georgia Ports Authority, United States
- Larsen & Toubro Limited - India
- Jaiprakash Power Ventures ltd
- Bangladesh Power Developement Board
- Port Waratah Coal Services - Australia
- McConnell Dowell - Australia
- Kepco SPC Power Corporation, Philippines
- Oldendorff Carriers - Singapore
- India Bulls Power Limited - India
- Ind-Barath Power Infra Limited - India
- Salva Resources Pvt Ltd - India
- Indian Oil Corporation Limited
- Billiton Holdings Pty Ltd - Australia
- Economic Council, Georgia
- Thai Mozambique Logistica
- GAC Shipping (India) Pvt Ltd
- Star Paper Mills Limited - India
- Directorate Of Revenue Intelligence - India
- AsiaOL BioFuels Corp., Philippines
- Kalimantan Lumbung Energi - Indonesia
- Mercuria Energy - Indonesia
- TNB Fuel Sdn Bhd - Malaysia
- Truba Alam Manunggal Engineering.Tbk - Indonesia
- ICICI Bank Limited - India
- The University of Queensland
- San Jose City I Power Corp, Philippines
- Interocean Group of Companies - India
- Orica Australia Pty. Ltd.
- Makarim & Taira - Indonesia
- PetroVietnam Power Coal Import and Supply Company
- Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand
- Marubeni Corporation - India
- Bhushan Steel Limited - India
- Global Green Power PLC Corporation, Philippines
- GMR Energy Limited - India
- Heidelberg Cement - Germany
- Eastern Energy - Thailand
- Mintek Dendrill Indonesia
- Bukit Baiduri Energy - Indonesia
- Energy Link Ltd, New Zealand
- Chettinad Cement Corporation Ltd - India
- Essar Steel Hazira Ltd - India
- London Commodity Brokers - England
- Attock Cement Pakistan Limited
- Indian Energy Exchange, India
- Mercator Lines Limited - India
- Samtan Co., Ltd - South Korea
- LBH Netherlands Bv - Netherlands
- PTC India Limited - India
- Kapuas Tunggal Persada - Indonesia
- Sojitz Corporation - Japan
- Renaissance Capital - South Africa
- Sarangani Energy Corporation, Philippines
- Bukit Makmur.PT - Indonesia
- Petron Corporation, Philippines
- Kaltim Prima Coal - Indonesia
- Borneo Indobara - Indonesia
- Therma Luzon, Inc, Philippines
- Vizag Seaport Private Limited - India
- Simpson Spence & Young - Indonesia
- Sakthi Sugars Limited - India
- Bhatia International Limited - India
- Savvy Resources Ltd - HongKong
- Orica Mining Services - Indonesia
- Bahari Cakrawala Sebuku - Indonesia
- Xindia Steels Limited - India
- Standard Chartered Bank - UAE
- Coal and Oil Company - UAE
- ASAPP Information Group - India
- Global Coal Blending Company Limited - Australia
- Thiess Contractors Indonesia
- Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd - Australia
- Anglo American - United Kingdom
- Metalloyd Limited - United Kingdom
- Ministry of Mines - Canada
- Lanco Infratech Ltd - India
- Ministry of Finance - Indonesia
- Aditya Birla Group - India
- Bhoruka Overseas - Indonesia
- Singapore Mercantile Exchange
- Bank of Tokyo Mitsubishi UFJ Ltd
- SMG Consultants - Indonesia
- Sree Jayajothi Cements Limited - India
- Timah Investasi Mineral - Indoneisa
- Ceylon Electricity Board - Sri Lanka
- Semirara Mining Corp, Philippines
- White Energy Company Limited
- VISA Power Limited - India
- CNBM International Corporation - China
- Cement Manufacturers Association - India
- Coalindo Energy - Indonesia
- Latin American Coal - Colombia
- Independent Power Producers Association of India
- Eastern Coal Council - USA
- Sical Logistics Limited - India
- International Coal Ventures Pvt Ltd - India
- Price Waterhouse Coopers - Russia
- Iligan Light & Power Inc, Philippines
- Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission - India
- Energy Development Corp, Philippines
- Rio Tinto Coal - Australia
- GN Power Mariveles Coal Plant, Philippines
- Bharathi Cement Corporation - India
- Parry Sugars Refinery, India
- TeaM Sual Corporation - Philippines
- Tata Chemicals Ltd - India
- Jorong Barutama Greston.PT - Indonesia
- The State Trading Corporation of India Ltd
- Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited - India
- Baramulti Group, Indonesia
- Alfred C Toepfer International GmbH - Germany
- Electricity Authority, New Zealand
- Directorate General of MIneral and Coal - Indonesia
- Formosa Plastics Group - Taiwan
- The Treasury - Australian Government
- Meralco Power Generation, Philippines
- Indo Tambangraya Megah - Indonesia
- Central Electricity Authority - India
- Indogreen Group - Indonesia
- Chamber of Mines of South Africa
- Gujarat Sidhee Cement - India
- Binh Thuan Hamico - Vietnam
- Kohat Cement Company Ltd. - Pakistan
- Goldman Sachs - Singapore
- Krishnapatnam Port Company Ltd. - India
- Cigading International Bulk Terminal - Indonesia
- Tamil Nadu electricity Board
- Videocon Industries ltd - India
- Straits Asia Resources Limited - Singapore
- Karaikal Port Pvt Ltd - India
- MS Steel International - UAE
- CIMB Investment Bank - Malaysia
- Manunggal Multi Energi - Indonesia
- Vedanta Resources Plc - India
- Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission - India
- Carbofer General Trading SA - India
- Bayan Resources Tbk. - Indonesia
- Wood Mackenzie - Singapore
- Ministry of Transport, Egypt
- South Luzon Thermal Energy Corporation
- Central Java Power - Indonesia
- Offshore Bulk Terminal Pte Ltd, Singapore
- Karbindo Abesyapradhi - Indoneisa
- Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd, - India
- Grasim Industreis Ltd - India
- SN Aboitiz Power Inc, Philippines
- Kobexindo Tractors - Indoneisa
- Ambuja Cements Ltd - India
- Kideco Jaya Agung - Indonesia
- Kartika Selabumi Mining - Indonesia
- PowerSource Philippines DevCo
- Bukit Asam (Persero) Tbk - Indonesia
- Coastal Gujarat Power Limited - India
- Maheswari Brothers Coal Limited - India
- IEA Clean Coal Centre - UK
- Indika Energy - Indonesia
- Intertek Mineral Services - Indonesia
- Posco Energy - South Korea
- Medco Energi Mining Internasional
- Africa Commodities Group - South Africa
- Filglen & Citicon Mining (HK) Ltd - Hong Kong
- Parliament of New Zealand
- Holcim Trading Pte Ltd - Singapore
- Dr Ramakrishna Prasad Power Pvt Ltd - India
- Indonesian Coal Mining Association
|
| |
| |
|
