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, 01 December 23
COAL MINERS GROUP EXPECTS INDONESIA’S 2023 COAL OUTPUT TO SURPASS TARGET - REUTERS
The Indonesian Coal Mining Association (ICMA) expects the country’s 2023 coal output to surpass the official target of 695 million metric ton ...
Friday, 24 November 23
COAL IMPORTS TO INDIA IN OCTOBER 2023 REACHED HIGHEST LEVELS IN NEARLY A YEAR AND A HALF - VESSELSVALUE, VESON NAUTICAL
In October, coal imports to India reached 13.8 mt in October 2023, according to Oceanbolt, a Veson Nautical solution, the highest level since May 2 ...
Friday, 24 November 23
COAL SHIPMENTS TO ADVANCED ECONOMIES DOWN 17% SO FAR IN 2023 - BIMCO
In the first ten months of 2023, coal shipments to advanced economies fell by 17% y/y, as demand for electricity declined and the share of electric ...
Friday, 24 November 23
INTELLIGENT COAL MINES CONTRIBUTE TO IMPROVING SAFETY STANDARDS - CHINA DAILY
Mechanization, automation and intelligent upgrades have contributed to improved safety in coal mines, though the level of development of intelligen ...
Friday, 24 November 23
WHY AUSTRALIA'S COAL MINES ARE GETTING BIGGER - IEEFA
Australia’s largest coal mines are getting larger. Mines in New South Wales (NSW) are ramping up production following the state’s recov ...
|
|
|
Showing 66 to 70 news of total 6871 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
 |
|
|
| |
|
- Bhoruka Overseas - Indonesia
- Trasteel International SA, Italy
- IEA Clean Coal Centre - UK
- Central Java Power - Indonesia
- Romanian Commodities Exchange
- Chamber of Mines of South Africa
- Energy Development Corp, Philippines
- Grasim Industreis Ltd - India
- GMR Energy Limited - India
- Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand
- Petrochimia International Co. Ltd.- Taiwan
- Sojitz Corporation - Japan
- Videocon Industries ltd - India
- Wood Mackenzie - Singapore
- Samtan Co., Ltd - South Korea
- The State Trading Corporation of India Ltd
- Planning Commission, India
- Larsen & Toubro Limited - India
- Orica Australia Pty. Ltd.
- PNOC Exploration Corporation - Philippines
- Barasentosa Lestari - Indonesia
- Ambuja Cements Ltd - India
- Kartika Selabumi Mining - Indonesia
- Kohat Cement Company Ltd. - Pakistan
- Sree Jayajothi Cements Limited - India
- Agrawal Coal Company - India
- Minerals Council of Australia
- LBH Netherlands Bv - Netherlands
- Globalindo Alam Lestari - Indonesia
- Baramulti Group, Indonesia
- Goldman Sachs - Singapore
- Marubeni Corporation - India
- Vedanta Resources Plc - India
- Coal and Oil Company - UAE
- Borneo Indobara - Indonesia
- Carbofer General Trading SA - India
- Jaiprakash Power Ventures ltd
- Simpson Spence & Young - Indonesia
- Jindal Steel & Power Ltd - India
- Dalmia Cement Bharat India
- SMC Global Power, Philippines
- Mercator Lines Limited - India
- Global Green Power PLC Corporation, Philippines
- Jorong Barutama Greston.PT - Indonesia
- Pendopo Energi Batubara - Indonesia
- Ministry of Mines - Canada
- SN Aboitiz Power Inc, Philippines
- Siam City Cement PLC, Thailand
- Offshore Bulk Terminal Pte Ltd, Singapore
- Anglo American - United Kingdom
- Uttam Galva Steels Limited - India
- OPG Power Generation Pvt Ltd - India
- Binh Thuan Hamico - Vietnam
- Riau Bara Harum - Indonesia
- Sakthi Sugars Limited - India
- Metalloyd Limited - United Kingdom
- Filglen & Citicon Mining (HK) Ltd - Hong Kong
- Bukit Baiduri Energy - Indonesia
- Indika Energy - Indonesia
- European Bulk Services B.V. - Netherlands
- Port Waratah Coal Services - Australia
- Tamil Nadu electricity Board
- Mercuria Energy - Indonesia
- Directorate General of MIneral and Coal - Indonesia
- London Commodity Brokers - England
- Bukit Asam (Persero) Tbk - Indonesia
- International Coal Ventures Pvt Ltd - India
- Kumho Petrochemical, South Korea
- Star Paper Mills Limited - India
- Sindya Power Generating Company Private Ltd
- Thai Mozambique Logistica
- Makarim & Taira - Indonesia
- GN Power Mariveles Coal Plant, Philippines
- Banpu Public Company Limited - Thailand
- Ceylon Electricity Board - Sri Lanka
- Aboitiz Power Corporation - Philippines
- TeaM Sual Corporation - Philippines
- Bukit Makmur.PT - Indonesia
- Siam City Cement - Thailand
- Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd - Australia
- Antam Resourcindo - Indonesia
- Tata Chemicals Ltd - India
- The University of Queensland
- Australian Commodity Traders Exchange
- Straits Asia Resources Limited - Singapore
- Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission - India
- Global Business Power Corporation, Philippines
- Global Coal Blending Company Limited - Australia
- TNB Fuel Sdn Bhd - Malaysia
- ASAPP Information Group - India
- Bank of Tokyo Mitsubishi UFJ Ltd
- Bulk Trading Sa - Switzerland
- Power Finance Corporation Ltd., India
- Kapuas Tunggal Persada - Indonesia
- Parry Sugars Refinery, India
- Coalindo Energy - Indonesia
- Thiess Contractors Indonesia
- Savvy Resources Ltd - HongKong
- Indogreen Group - Indonesia
- India Bulls Power Limited - India
- Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited - India
- Orica Mining Services - Indonesia
- Kepco SPC Power Corporation, Philippines
- Krishnapatnam Port Company Ltd. - India
- Renaissance Capital - South Africa
- Sarangani Energy Corporation, Philippines
- Indian Energy Exchange, India
- Formosa Plastics Group - Taiwan
- Lanco Infratech Ltd - India
- The Treasury - Australian Government
- Sical Logistics Limited - India
- Aditya Birla Group - India
- Dong Bac Coal Mineral Investment Coporation - Vietnam
- Kalimantan Lumbung Energi - Indonesia
- Central Electricity Authority - India
- Ministry of Finance - Indonesia
- Independent Power Producers Association of India
- Bahari Cakrawala Sebuku - Indonesia
- Intertek Mineral Services - Indonesia
- Edison Trading Spa - Italy
- Dr Ramakrishna Prasad Power Pvt Ltd - India
- Indonesian Coal Mining Association
- Economic Council, Georgia
- Interocean Group of Companies - India
- Africa Commodities Group - South Africa
- Vijayanagar Sugar Pvt Ltd - India
- Kobexindo Tractors - Indoneisa
- Energy Link Ltd, New Zealand
- Manunggal Multi Energi - Indonesia
- SMG Consultants - Indonesia
- Ind-Barath Power Infra Limited - India
- Altura Mining Limited, Indonesia
- Georgia Ports Authority, United States
- Eastern Coal Council - USA
- Malabar Cements Ltd - India
- Bayan Resources Tbk. - Indonesia
- Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd, - India
- McConnell Dowell - Australia
- Commonwealth Bank - Australia
- Cigading International Bulk Terminal - Indonesia
- Meralco Power Generation, Philippines
- Singapore Mercantile Exchange
- Wilmar Investment Holdings
- Mintek Dendrill Indonesia
- Ministry of Transport, Egypt
- AsiaOL BioFuels Corp., Philippines
- Australian Coal Association
- Salva Resources Pvt Ltd - India
- Maheswari Brothers Coal Limited - India
- Karaikal Port Pvt Ltd - India
- Therma Luzon, Inc, Philippines
- Bharathi Cement Corporation - India
- Oldendorff Carriers - Singapore
- GAC Shipping (India) Pvt Ltd
- Holcim Trading Pte Ltd - Singapore
- Heidelberg Cement - Germany
- Alfred C Toepfer International GmbH - Germany
- PowerSource Philippines DevCo
- Posco Energy - South Korea
- Standard Chartered Bank - UAE
- Timah Investasi Mineral - Indoneisa
- Bhushan Steel Limited - India
- Iligan Light & Power Inc, Philippines
- CNBM International Corporation - China
- Merrill Lynch Commodities Europe
- IHS Mccloskey Coal Group - USA
- Attock Cement Pakistan Limited
- MS Steel International - UAE
- Kaltim Prima Coal - Indonesia
- Asmin Koalindo Tuhup - Indonesia
- Bhatia International Limited - India
- Rio Tinto Coal - Australia
- VISA Power Limited - India
- Semirara Mining and Power Corporation, Philippines
- Eastern Energy - Thailand
- Gujarat Mineral Development Corp Ltd - India
- Meenaskhi Energy Private Limited - India
- Indo Tambangraya Megah - Indonesia
- Miang Besar Coal Terminal - Indonesia
- Directorate Of Revenue Intelligence - India
- Coastal Gujarat Power Limited - India
- Deloitte Consulting - India
- Medco Energi Mining Internasional
- Electricity Authority, New Zealand
- Cement Manufacturers Association - India
- PTC India Limited - India
- San Jose City I Power Corp, Philippines
- White Energy Company Limited
- South Luzon Thermal Energy Corporation
- Latin American Coal - Colombia
- Xindia Steels Limited - India
- Bangladesh Power Developement Board
- Sinarmas Energy and Mining - Indonesia
- ICICI Bank Limited - India
- Price Waterhouse Coopers - Russia
- Vizag Seaport Private Limited - India
- Mjunction Services Limited - India
- New Zealand Coal & Carbon
- Indian Oil Corporation Limited
- Parliament of New Zealand
- Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission - India
- Truba Alam Manunggal Engineering.Tbk - Indonesia
- Pipit Mutiara Jaya. PT, Indonesia
- GVK Power & Infra Limited - India
- Asia Pacific Energy Resources Ventures Inc, Philippines
- Chettinad Cement Corporation Ltd - India
- PetroVietnam Power Coal Import and Supply Company
- Gujarat Sidhee Cement - India
- Billiton Holdings Pty Ltd - Australia
- Petron Corporation, Philippines
- CIMB Investment Bank - Malaysia
- Essar Steel Hazira Ltd - India
- Kideco Jaya Agung - Indonesia
- Toyota Tsusho Corporation, Japan
- Karbindo Abesyapradhi - Indoneisa
- Madhucon Powers Ltd - India
- Semirara Mining Corp, Philippines
|
| |
| |
|
