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, 22 November 23
INDIA: GOVERNMENT PLANS 1.4 BILLION TONNE COAL OUTPUT BY 2027 - LIVEMINT
The Union coal ministry on Monday announced plans to increase India’s coal production to 1.404 billion tonne by 2027, with an eye to further ...
Wednesday, 22 November 23
OBLIGATION. INDONESIA AIMS TO START COLLECTING LEVIES FROM COAL MINERS IN JANUARY - REUTERS
Indonesia plans to start collecting levies from coal miners in January to be used to compensate miners who sell coal to the state utility at lower ...
Tuesday, 21 November 23
INDIAN COAL POWER PLANTS’ CAPACITY UTILISATION WILL IMPROVE TO 65% THIS FISCAL: - CRISIL
Coal-based thermal power units’ plant load factor (PLF) or capacity utilisation will improve to 65 percent in the current fiscal year despite ...
Tuesday, 14 November 23
CAPITAL PRODUCT PARTNERS L.P. ANNOUNCES TRANSFORMATIVE TRANSACTION INCLUDING THE ACQUISITION OF 11 NEWBUILD LNG CARRIERS FOR $3.1 BILLION
Capital Product Partners L.P. announced that it has entered into an umbrella agreement (the “Umbrella Agreement”) with Capital Maritime ...
Tuesday, 14 November 23
COAL INDIA BEATS Q2 PROFIT VIEW ON HIGH POWER DEMAND AMID WEAK MONSOON - REUTERS
Coal India on Friday reported better-than-expected second-quarter profit, helped by high power demand and boosted production amid a weak monsoon.
...
|
|
|
Showing 71 to 75 news of total 6871 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
 |
|
|
| |
|
- Filglen & Citicon Mining (HK) Ltd - Hong Kong
- Energy Link Ltd, New Zealand
- Chettinad Cement Corporation Ltd - India
- McConnell Dowell - Australia
- Mercator Lines Limited - India
- OPG Power Generation Pvt Ltd - India
- Parliament of New Zealand
- Bhatia International Limited - India
- Orica Australia Pty. Ltd.
- Sakthi Sugars Limited - India
- GAC Shipping (India) Pvt Ltd
- Sarangani Energy Corporation, Philippines
- PetroVietnam Power Coal Import and Supply Company
- Ind-Barath Power Infra Limited - India
- TNB Fuel Sdn Bhd - Malaysia
- Bulk Trading Sa - Switzerland
- AsiaOL BioFuels Corp., Philippines
- Dalmia Cement Bharat India
- CIMB Investment Bank - Malaysia
- Trasteel International SA, Italy
- The State Trading Corporation of India Ltd
- SMG Consultants - Indonesia
- Gujarat Mineral Development Corp Ltd - India
- Malabar Cements Ltd - India
- PNOC Exploration Corporation - Philippines
- Independent Power Producers Association of India
- Timah Investasi Mineral - Indoneisa
- The Treasury - Australian Government
- Bangladesh Power Developement Board
- Petron Corporation, Philippines
- Manunggal Multi Energi - Indonesia
- San Jose City I Power Corp, Philippines
- Aditya Birla Group - India
- Offshore Bulk Terminal Pte Ltd, Singapore
- SN Aboitiz Power Inc, Philippines
- London Commodity Brokers - England
- Bank of Tokyo Mitsubishi UFJ Ltd
- Vizag Seaport Private Limited - India
- TeaM Sual Corporation - Philippines
- Kepco SPC Power Corporation, Philippines
- Petrochimia International Co. Ltd.- Taiwan
- Bukit Asam (Persero) Tbk - Indonesia
- Chamber of Mines of South Africa
- Kaltim Prima Coal - Indonesia
- Economic Council, Georgia
- Tamil Nadu electricity Board
- Heidelberg Cement - Germany
- Siam City Cement PLC, Thailand
- Miang Besar Coal Terminal - Indonesia
- The University of Queensland
- Central Java Power - Indonesia
- Straits Asia Resources Limited - Singapore
- Maheswari Brothers Coal Limited - India
- LBH Netherlands Bv - Netherlands
- Central Electricity Authority - India
- Orica Mining Services - Indonesia
- Romanian Commodities Exchange
- Kohat Cement Company Ltd. - Pakistan
- Georgia Ports Authority, United States
- Star Paper Mills Limited - India
- Videocon Industries ltd - India
- Essar Steel Hazira Ltd - India
- Semirara Mining and Power Corporation, Philippines
- Savvy Resources Ltd - HongKong
- Meralco Power Generation, Philippines
- Iligan Light & Power Inc, Philippines
- MS Steel International - UAE
- Altura Mining Limited, Indonesia
- GN Power Mariveles Coal Plant, Philippines
- Alfred C Toepfer International GmbH - Germany
- New Zealand Coal & Carbon
- IHS Mccloskey Coal Group - USA
- Pendopo Energi Batubara - Indonesia
- Coalindo Energy - Indonesia
- Interocean Group of Companies - India
- Simpson Spence & Young - Indonesia
- Mercuria Energy - Indonesia
- India Bulls Power Limited - India
- Global Business Power Corporation, Philippines
- Goldman Sachs - Singapore
- PowerSource Philippines DevCo
- Oldendorff Carriers - Singapore
- Agrawal Coal Company - India
- Global Green Power PLC Corporation, Philippines
- Makarim & Taira - Indonesia
- European Bulk Services B.V. - Netherlands
- Vijayanagar Sugar Pvt Ltd - India
- Africa Commodities Group - South Africa
- Standard Chartered Bank - UAE
- Intertek Mineral Services - Indonesia
- Cement Manufacturers Association - India
- Jaiprakash Power Ventures ltd
- Edison Trading Spa - Italy
- Mjunction Services Limited - India
- Port Waratah Coal Services - Australia
- GMR Energy Limited - India
- International Coal Ventures Pvt Ltd - India
- Planning Commission, India
- Directorate General of MIneral and Coal - Indonesia
- Cigading International Bulk Terminal - Indonesia
- Wood Mackenzie - Singapore
- Aboitiz Power Corporation - Philippines
- Kideco Jaya Agung - Indonesia
- Larsen & Toubro Limited - India
- Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission - India
- Energy Development Corp, Philippines
- Renaissance Capital - South Africa
- Attock Cement Pakistan Limited
- Meenaskhi Energy Private Limited - India
- Borneo Indobara - Indonesia
- Metalloyd Limited - United Kingdom
- CNBM International Corporation - China
- SMC Global Power, Philippines
- Kalimantan Lumbung Energi - Indonesia
- Sree Jayajothi Cements Limited - India
- South Luzon Thermal Energy Corporation
- Electricity Authority, New Zealand
- Eastern Coal Council - USA
- Ministry of Finance - Indonesia
- Tata Chemicals Ltd - India
- Sical Logistics Limited - India
- Asmin Koalindo Tuhup - Indonesia
- Sojitz Corporation - Japan
- Bukit Baiduri Energy - Indonesia
- Asia Pacific Energy Resources Ventures Inc, Philippines
- Directorate Of Revenue Intelligence - India
- Antam Resourcindo - Indonesia
- Latin American Coal - Colombia
- Baramulti Group, Indonesia
- Bayan Resources Tbk. - Indonesia
- Kartika Selabumi Mining - Indonesia
- Samtan Co., Ltd - South Korea
- Dong Bac Coal Mineral Investment Coporation - Vietnam
- Vedanta Resources Plc - India
- Xindia Steels Limited - India
- Kobexindo Tractors - Indoneisa
- Toyota Tsusho Corporation, Japan
- VISA Power Limited - India
- Mintek Dendrill Indonesia
- ASAPP Information Group - India
- Holcim Trading Pte Ltd - Singapore
- Bhushan Steel Limited - India
- Posco Energy - South Korea
- Therma Luzon, Inc, Philippines
- Binh Thuan Hamico - Vietnam
- Grasim Industreis Ltd - India
- Price Waterhouse Coopers - Russia
- Minerals Council of Australia
- Indika Energy - Indonesia
- Sindya Power Generating Company Private Ltd
- Merrill Lynch Commodities Europe
- ICICI Bank Limited - India
- Salva Resources Pvt Ltd - India
- Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand
- Riau Bara Harum - Indonesia
- Gujarat Sidhee Cement - India
- Australian Commodity Traders Exchange
- Barasentosa Lestari - Indonesia
- Ambuja Cements Ltd - India
- Krishnapatnam Port Company Ltd. - India
- Kapuas Tunggal Persada - Indonesia
- Indo Tambangraya Megah - Indonesia
- Billiton Holdings Pty Ltd - Australia
- Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd, - India
- Jindal Steel & Power Ltd - India
- Kumho Petrochemical, South Korea
- Carbofer General Trading SA - India
- IEA Clean Coal Centre - UK
- Bharathi Cement Corporation - India
- Karaikal Port Pvt Ltd - India
- Siam City Cement - Thailand
- Indian Energy Exchange, India
- Karbindo Abesyapradhi - Indoneisa
- Thai Mozambique Logistica
- Eastern Energy - Thailand
- Globalindo Alam Lestari - Indonesia
- Ministry of Mines - Canada
- Power Finance Corporation Ltd., India
- Commonwealth Bank - Australia
- Wilmar Investment Holdings
- Semirara Mining Corp, Philippines
- Madhucon Powers Ltd - India
- White Energy Company Limited
- Bukit Makmur.PT - Indonesia
- Australian Coal Association
- Formosa Plastics Group - Taiwan
- Parry Sugars Refinery, India
- Pipit Mutiara Jaya. PT, Indonesia
- Jorong Barutama Greston.PT - Indonesia
- Thiess Contractors Indonesia
- Deloitte Consulting - India
- Marubeni Corporation - India
- GVK Power & Infra Limited - India
- Dr Ramakrishna Prasad Power Pvt Ltd - India
- Uttam Galva Steels Limited - India
- Medco Energi Mining Internasional
- Global Coal Blending Company Limited - Australia
- Banpu Public Company Limited - Thailand
- Coal and Oil Company - UAE
- Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission - India
- Sinarmas Energy and Mining - Indonesia
- Singapore Mercantile Exchange
- Indian Oil Corporation Limited
- Bhoruka Overseas - Indonesia
- Indogreen Group - Indonesia
- PTC India Limited - India
- Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited - India
- Lanco Infratech Ltd - India
- Rio Tinto Coal - Australia
- Ministry of Transport, Egypt
- Ceylon Electricity Board - Sri Lanka
- Bahari Cakrawala Sebuku - Indonesia
- Truba Alam Manunggal Engineering.Tbk - Indonesia
- Indonesian Coal Mining Association
- Coastal Gujarat Power Limited - India
- Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd - Australia
- Anglo American - United Kingdom
|
| |
| |
|
