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.
|
|
Tuesday, 14 November 23
CHINA'S BELT AND ROAD INITIATIVE TURNS AWAY FROM COAL - WOOD MACKENZIE
Ambitious, contentious and big spending, China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) is 10 years old. In that time, China has splashed more than U ...
Friday, 10 November 23
THE COMMODITIES FEED: OIL UNDER PRESSURE - ING
Energy – Brent plummets
The oil market came under significant pressure yesterday. ICE Brent settled 4.19% lower on the day and ...
Friday, 10 November 23
COAL USE AT U.S. POWER PLANTS CONTINUES DOWNWARD SPIRAL; FULL IMPACT ON MINES TO BE FELT IN 2024 - IEEFA
This year, the use of coal by the U.S.’s power producers has been so anemic that the fuel has not achieved a 20% market share in any month so ...
Friday, 10 November 23
INDIA: NATIONAL COAL INDEX RISES 3.83 POINTS IN SEPTEMBER AMID HIGHER DEMAND - LIVEMINT
The National Coal Index (NCI) rose 3.83 points to 143.91 in September amid growing demand for coal.
The union coal ministry on Tuesd ...
Thursday, 09 November 23
WE'RE PRODUCING TOO MUCH COAL, OIL AND GAS, REPORT SAYS - WSJ
World leaders pledged in 2015 to reduce emissions in a combined effort to limit climate change.
Now they are stepping up production ...
|
|
|
Showing 76 to 80 news of total 6871 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
 |
|
|
| |
|
- Alfred C Toepfer International GmbH - Germany
- Altura Mining Limited, Indonesia
- Heidelberg Cement - Germany
- GAC Shipping (India) Pvt Ltd
- Kalimantan Lumbung Energi - Indonesia
- CNBM International Corporation - China
- Bhoruka Overseas - Indonesia
- Power Finance Corporation Ltd., India
- Standard Chartered Bank - UAE
- Jindal Steel & Power Ltd - India
- Medco Energi Mining Internasional
- GMR Energy Limited - India
- Simpson Spence & Young - Indonesia
- London Commodity Brokers - England
- Asia Pacific Energy Resources Ventures Inc, Philippines
- Sarangani Energy Corporation, Philippines
- ICICI Bank Limited - India
- Kartika Selabumi Mining - Indonesia
- Semirara Mining and Power Corporation, Philippines
- Bhushan Steel Limited - India
- Filglen & Citicon Mining (HK) Ltd - Hong Kong
- Binh Thuan Hamico - Vietnam
- Vedanta Resources Plc - India
- Meralco Power Generation, Philippines
- Anglo American - United Kingdom
- PNOC Exploration Corporation - Philippines
- Oldendorff Carriers - Singapore
- Goldman Sachs - Singapore
- Sree Jayajothi Cements Limited - India
- ASAPP Information Group - India
- Videocon Industries ltd - India
- Bukit Baiduri Energy - Indonesia
- Global Coal Blending Company Limited - Australia
- Indo Tambangraya Megah - Indonesia
- Barasentosa Lestari - Indonesia
- Miang Besar Coal Terminal - Indonesia
- The University of Queensland
- Ministry of Transport, Egypt
- Directorate General of MIneral and Coal - Indonesia
- Dalmia Cement Bharat India
- Bangladesh Power Developement Board
- The Treasury - Australian Government
- Tamil Nadu electricity Board
- Attock Cement Pakistan Limited
- Bukit Makmur.PT - Indonesia
- Australian Coal Association
- Renaissance Capital - South Africa
- PowerSource Philippines DevCo
- Baramulti Group, Indonesia
- Makarim & Taira - Indonesia
- International Coal Ventures Pvt Ltd - India
- Cement Manufacturers Association - India
- Grasim Industreis Ltd - India
- Semirara Mining Corp, Philippines
- Parliament of New Zealand
- Posco Energy - South Korea
- Jorong Barutama Greston.PT - Indonesia
- Electricity Authority, New Zealand
- Vizag Seaport Private Limited - India
- Ambuja Cements Ltd - India
- Latin American Coal - Colombia
- Port Waratah Coal Services - Australia
- VISA Power Limited - India
- Africa Commodities Group - South Africa
- Kobexindo Tractors - Indoneisa
- Dr Ramakrishna Prasad Power Pvt Ltd - India
- Bhatia International Limited - India
- Energy Link Ltd, New Zealand
- Malabar Cements Ltd - India
- McConnell Dowell - Australia
- Dong Bac Coal Mineral Investment Coporation - Vietnam
- Price Waterhouse Coopers - Russia
- Sinarmas Energy and Mining - Indonesia
- Formosa Plastics Group - Taiwan
- Romanian Commodities Exchange
- Vijayanagar Sugar Pvt Ltd - India
- Orica Mining Services - Indonesia
- Jaiprakash Power Ventures ltd
- Asmin Koalindo Tuhup - Indonesia
- Truba Alam Manunggal Engineering.Tbk - Indonesia
- PetroVietnam Power Coal Import and Supply Company
- Pipit Mutiara Jaya. PT, Indonesia
- Global Green Power PLC Corporation, Philippines
- Carbofer General Trading SA - India
- White Energy Company Limited
- Indian Energy Exchange, India
- Indika Energy - Indonesia
- Straits Asia Resources Limited - Singapore
- Kohat Cement Company Ltd. - Pakistan
- Gujarat Sidhee Cement - India
- Uttam Galva Steels Limited - India
- Agrawal Coal Company - India
- Trasteel International SA, Italy
- Karaikal Port Pvt Ltd - India
- Coastal Gujarat Power Limited - India
- Edison Trading Spa - Italy
- Madhucon Powers Ltd - India
- Mintek Dendrill Indonesia
- Riau Bara Harum - Indonesia
- Holcim Trading Pte Ltd - Singapore
- Thiess Contractors Indonesia
- AsiaOL BioFuels Corp., Philippines
- Intertek Mineral Services - Indonesia
- Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd, - India
- Sakthi Sugars Limited - India
- Thai Mozambique Logistica
- Minerals Council of Australia
- Economic Council, Georgia
- Petrochimia International Co. Ltd.- Taiwan
- Planning Commission, India
- Maheswari Brothers Coal Limited - India
- Bharathi Cement Corporation - India
- Ceylon Electricity Board - Sri Lanka
- Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd - Australia
- SMG Consultants - Indonesia
- Parry Sugars Refinery, India
- Bank of Tokyo Mitsubishi UFJ Ltd
- Georgia Ports Authority, United States
- Banpu Public Company Limited - Thailand
- Chettinad Cement Corporation Ltd - India
- Mercuria Energy - Indonesia
- Eastern Coal Council - USA
- LBH Netherlands Bv - Netherlands
- Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission - India
- TeaM Sual Corporation - Philippines
- Coal and Oil Company - UAE
- Bukit Asam (Persero) Tbk - Indonesia
- Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited - India
- Ministry of Finance - Indonesia
- Wilmar Investment Holdings
- Metalloyd Limited - United Kingdom
- SMC Global Power, Philippines
- Eastern Energy - Thailand
- Xindia Steels Limited - India
- Singapore Mercantile Exchange
- Kumho Petrochemical, South Korea
- Indonesian Coal Mining Association
- Coalindo Energy - Indonesia
- Australian Commodity Traders Exchange
- Antam Resourcindo - Indonesia
- Karbindo Abesyapradhi - Indoneisa
- Orica Australia Pty. Ltd.
- CIMB Investment Bank - Malaysia
- European Bulk Services B.V. - Netherlands
- Borneo Indobara - Indonesia
- Tata Chemicals Ltd - India
- Toyota Tsusho Corporation, Japan
- Krishnapatnam Port Company Ltd. - India
- Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission - India
- Directorate Of Revenue Intelligence - India
- Mercator Lines Limited - India
- Aditya Birla Group - India
- Indian Oil Corporation Limited
- Sojitz Corporation - Japan
- Sindya Power Generating Company Private Ltd
- Salva Resources Pvt Ltd - India
- Pendopo Energi Batubara - Indonesia
- IHS Mccloskey Coal Group - USA
- Manunggal Multi Energi - Indonesia
- Bulk Trading Sa - Switzerland
- Petron Corporation, Philippines
- Merrill Lynch Commodities Europe
- Chamber of Mines of South Africa
- GVK Power & Infra Limited - India
- Siam City Cement - Thailand
- Independent Power Producers Association of India
- Meenaskhi Energy Private Limited - India
- OPG Power Generation Pvt Ltd - India
- Essar Steel Hazira Ltd - India
- Indogreen Group - Indonesia
- TNB Fuel Sdn Bhd - Malaysia
- Ind-Barath Power Infra Limited - India
- Larsen & Toubro Limited - India
- Energy Development Corp, Philippines
- Gujarat Mineral Development Corp Ltd - India
- India Bulls Power Limited - India
- Lanco Infratech Ltd - India
- PTC India Limited - India
- New Zealand Coal & Carbon
- Timah Investasi Mineral - Indoneisa
- Central Electricity Authority - India
- Central Java Power - Indonesia
- Aboitiz Power Corporation - Philippines
- Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand
- The State Trading Corporation of India Ltd
- Ministry of Mines - Canada
- Global Business Power Corporation, Philippines
- Iligan Light & Power Inc, Philippines
- Kapuas Tunggal Persada - Indonesia
- South Luzon Thermal Energy Corporation
- Sical Logistics Limited - India
- Deloitte Consulting - India
- Cigading International Bulk Terminal - Indonesia
- Marubeni Corporation - India
- Rio Tinto Coal - Australia
- Savvy Resources Ltd - HongKong
- Siam City Cement PLC, Thailand
- Samtan Co., Ltd - South Korea
- Star Paper Mills Limited - India
- Kepco SPC Power Corporation, Philippines
- Commonwealth Bank - Australia
- Globalindo Alam Lestari - Indonesia
- Offshore Bulk Terminal Pte Ltd, Singapore
- Bahari Cakrawala Sebuku - Indonesia
- San Jose City I Power Corp, Philippines
- MS Steel International - UAE
- Wood Mackenzie - Singapore
- Therma Luzon, Inc, Philippines
- Mjunction Services Limited - India
- SN Aboitiz Power Inc, Philippines
- IEA Clean Coal Centre - UK
- Kideco Jaya Agung - Indonesia
- Billiton Holdings Pty Ltd - Australia
- GN Power Mariveles Coal Plant, Philippines
- Interocean Group of Companies - India
- Kaltim Prima Coal - Indonesia
- Bayan Resources Tbk. - Indonesia
|
| |
| |
|
