Dana Gas Strikes Again - "It's Just a Contract"

The above should not be read to imply that AA considers this a minor lapse.

Dana Gas has apparently struck again, suggesting its earlier unilateral abrogation of its legal obligations under its sukuk was no fluke.  

It seems that in negotiating the settlement with the KRG, DG and Crescent Petroleum did not obtain the consent of MOL Group Hungary, a ten percent shareholder in Pearl, before finalizing the agreement with the KRG. 

As noted in earlier posts, the agreement among Pearl’s shareholders gives the minority shareholders—MOL, RWE, and OMV—certain rights including the ability to veto some decisions of Pearl. 

MOL asserts that the settlement with the KRG is a decision that requires shareholder unanimity and that it did not provide its consent.  I’ve provided excerpts from DG’s and MOL’s press releases below.  

But first some comments.

1. Counterparties considering concluding contractual arrangements with Pearl Petroleum and Dana Gas would be well-advised to carefully consider this “event” and whether it is further evidence of DG’s and PPL’s less than sterling record of honouring legal agreements. 
2. As a side comment, AA notes that behaviour of this sort, if unchecked, might lead to widespread adoption of a cavalier attitude to legal agreements on a wider basis.  Countries may even be tempted to re-read binding treaties and find imagined breaches of the spirit of an agreement. 
3. The hapless creditors in DG’s sukuk should carefully consider how to protect themselves in the ongoing restructuring negotiations.  What is the value of the word of a counterparty that appears to have a relaxed attitude towards legal obligations?  No doubt not USD 690 million.  Probably not USD 690.  
4. On the other hand, if Dana’s assertion is that MOL is using “legal technicalities” in an effort to extort benefits or to abrogate the existing Pearl shareholders’ agreement is correct (a mighty big “if”), then this would seem a case of karmic comeuppance.   Perhaps to be followed by Baghdad reopening the concession agreements when it has settled affairs with the KRG. 
5. In the arbitration proceedings will MOL be able to make a convincing case to the LCIA to DG's disadvantage that DG’s conduct with the sukuk and the shareholders’ agreement is part of a pattern of cavalier disregard and bad faith towards legal obligations? 
6. Will Abu Yusuf come up with another far-fetched distortion of Shari’ah to support DG’s actions re the KRG settlement?  If he does, will the LCIA “buy” it?
7. Are the fine courts of Sharjah standing by to issue an injunction if the LCIA proceedings seem to be going MOL's way?
8. Will DG’s shareholders providentially and of course completely of their own volition intervene in Sharjah’s fine courts to block the arbitral proceedings or award?  

Here’s the excerpt from DG’s press release. 

The Settlement Agreement with the KRG was welcomed and endorsed by Dana Gas, Crescent Petroleum, OMV and RWE, together holding 90% of the shares of Pearl. Unfortunately, MOL (a 10% shareholder of Pearl) unreasonably sought to link its endorsement of the settlement to a renegotiation of the terms by which it first secured its participation in Pearl back in May 2009 (namely its commitment to certain contingent payments) and now complains about Dana Gas and Crescent Petroleum for their handling of the settlement alongside Pearl, expressing dissatisfaction with the outcome as compared to the alternative of pursuing a final litigation and enforcement outcome against the KRG.

And from MOL’s press release.  I’ve boldfaced a key sentence which if true presents a world of trouble for DG and other shareholders. 

MOL Plc. (“MOL” or “MOL Group”) hereby notifies the market of the following:  MOL joined Pearl Petroleum Company Limited ("Pearl") in 2009 as a shareholder with a 10% stake and strong minority rights. Pearl’s shareholders include, among others, Dana Gas PJSC ("Dana Gas”) and Crescent Petroleum Company International Limited (“Crescent”). Dana Gas and Crescent, along with Pearl, entered into an agreement to settle Pearl’s long-standing dispute with the Kurdistan Regional Government of Iraq (“KRG”) on 30 August 2017 (the “Settlement Agreement”), without properly consulting MOL or obtaining requisite approval, in breach of MOL’s contractual rights. MOL accordingly served a default notice on Dana Gas and Crescent on 11 September 2017 in accordance with the mechanism agreed by and between the shareholders of Pearl. The default notice has severe legal consequences for the defaulting shareholders, their shareholdings in Pearl and their related entitlements. As announced by Dana Gas earlier today, MOL received a Request for Arbitration from Dana Gas and Crescent in the London Court of International Arbitration, disputing the validity of MOL’s default notice. MOL will take all appropriate steps to enforce and protect its rights.

Dana Gas: Comments on KRG Settlement

Unless you’ve been asleep you’ve already read about the settlement between the Kurdistan Regional Government and Pearl Petroleum announced on 30 August by Dana Gas. 

Most of the headlines focused on the USD 1 billion payment by the KRG to Pearl Petroleum and did not discuss other aspects of the transaction.  The market reacted with characteristic irrational exuberance. Hence this post.

To start a side comment. In a rather bizarre but not uncharacteristic move, DG did not confirm PPL’s receipt of the payment until 5 September after receiving “numerous market enquiries”.  Apparently, neither DG’s crack investor relations staff nor its management thought that there were parties who would be interested in knowing for certain that the KRG actually made the payment.

Not a particularly “brilliant” move to sit on such critical and positive news but sadly par for the course at DG.  Or as AA’s brother no doubt would have it, “shelled another dolly.” 

Here’s an extract from the joint KRG/PPL press release published by Dana Gas.

The agreed settlement highlights are as follows:

1. The KRG will immediately pay Pearl (PPL) a sum of US$600 million.
2. The KRG will also immediately pay Pearl a further US$400 million to be dedicated for investment exclusively for the aforesaid further development to substantially increase production.
3. Pearl will increase gas production at Khor Mor by 500 MMscf/day, a 160% increase on the current level of production (the "Additional Gas"). The Additional Gas, together with significant additional amounts of condensate, is expected to begin production in approximately two years.
4. The balance of sums awarded by the Tribunal ($1,239 million) is no longer a debt owed by the KRG and will be reclassified as outstanding cost recoverable by Pearl from future revenues generated from the HoA areas.  The profit share allocated to Pearl from future revenues generated from the HoA areas are adjusted upwards to a level similar to the overall profit levels normally offered to IOCs under the KRG's Production Sharing Contracts. This adjustment reflects the larger investment risks and costs involved in the development of natural gas resources compared to oil developments. After the recovery of costs and a return on investment by the Consortium, 78% of revenues generated from the HoA areas will be for the account of the KRG, and 22% for the account of Pearl.  
5. The Parties have clarified the Khor Mor block boundary coordinates and the KRG has awarded the Consortium investment opportunities in the adjacent blocks 19 and 20, and added these to the HoA areas, with commitments by the Consortium to make appraisal investments on these blocks, and developments if commercial oil and gas resources are found.  The KRG will purchase 50% of the Additional Gas on agreed terms to boost the gas supply to power generation plants in the Kurdistan Region.  The other 50% of the Additional Gas (250 mmscf/d) will be marketed and sold by Pearl to customers within Iraq or by export, or can be sold to the KRG as well to further boost power generation within Iraq.
6. Pearl will also expand its local training and employment programs towards achieving maximum localization and content, as well as supporting local communities through its active Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) programmes.
7. The Parties have exchanged mutual releases, waivers, and discharges in relation to all claims in relation to the Arbitration and related court proceedings. The Parties have also amended and clarified the HoA language and terms, including extension of the term of the contract until 2049. 

Now for a closer look. 

1. DG is a 35% shareholder in PPL so at a first cut, DG’s share of the USD 1 billion payment is USD 350 million.  Sounds good, but there are at least a few wrinkles.
2. That money is at Pearl not DG, though DG will show the USD 350 million in its September financials, just as it shows its 35% share of PPL’s aggregate trade receivables.  If and until PPL transfers funds to DG, DG will not have use of the funds.
3. Also note the money in two tranches.  One of USD 210 million and one of USD 140 million.
4. Let's start with the second amount the USD 140 million. That amount will not be available for DG to use as it wishes because the USD  400 million tranche is required to be spent in the KRG to expand production, assuming of course that PPL honors its commitment to the KRG. 
5. As regards the first amount DG's USD 210 million share of the USD 600 million, how much of this DG will ultimately obtain unrestricted use of depends on Pearl's cash needs, particularly if PPL will require more than USD 400 million to fund the promised increase in production.   If the amount exceeds USD 400 million, then any funds ultimately transferred to DG and its partners for their own use will be lower than the USD 600 million discussed above. 
6. PPL has agreed to release the KRG from its obligation to pay the remaining USD 1.239 billion of the arbitral award.  However, this amount is not completely forgiven or “lost”.  It’s been transformed into a “recoverable cost”.  Under concession agreements, the operator is entitled to recover its invested costs plus a certain return (not specified here and I could not locate it in DG’s financials or other information it publishes) before the profit sharing mechanism becomes operative. 
7. What this means is that PPL and thus DG and its partners will recover this amount over time, if the Kurdistan fields produce.   PPL is thus highly incentivized to ramp up and maintain production as soon as possible.  That’s the good news. 
8. The bad news is that this is an installment payment which is estimated to begin some two years hence.  On a present value basis then PPL will recover less than the USD 1.239 nominal sum.  Depending on the timing of production, the amount may be much less. 
9. The KRG has increased DG’s share under the profit sharing agreement to 22% and has extended the concession period to 2049.  That gives PPL the opportunity for additional earnings and will counteract to some extent the present value loss on the USD 1.239 billion.  Just how much is not clear as again it will depend on the timing of cashflows. 
10. Dana will also be able to sell 50% of the Additional Gas for export neatly side stepping further exposure to the KRG's creditworthiness.
11. PL and the KRG have issued mutual releases on arbitral claims.  You will recall that earlier this year PPL was reported to be pursuing some USD 26.5 billion in claims against the KRF for alleged damages. On a positive note, the settlement of all claims may lead to an increase in KRG payments of outstanding be-whiskered trade receivables which would help DG’s cash flow but not its profit.   The stale receivables have already reduced DG’s realized profit from that reported by the operation of present value.  Nonetheless, more cash in hand would provide DG additional flexibility in conducting its operations.  Were it so inclined—an assumption for which there is scant evidence so far—the cash could be used to repay the sukuk.  This claim has been dropped as language from the preface to the press release indicate. 

The Parties have mutually agreed to fully and finally settle all their differences amicably by terminating the Arbitration and related court proceedings, and releasing all remaining claims between them, including the substantial damages asserted by the Consortium against the KRG.

While there is both some good and some not so good news for DG in the PPL settlement, on balance it probably is a net positive.  AA suspects that those who have read the news of the settlement and are expecting a cash bonanza at DG will be like the bankers who are anticipating "rich investment banking fees" in Saudi Arabia.

But Is this good news positive enough for AA to change his recommendation against investing in DG equity or debt? 

A resounding no. 

The first rule of investing is not to invest with issuers who have demonstrated that they cannot be trusted to honor obligations.   

Dana Gas Restructuring: Not So Current (Assets) Trade Receivables -- UPDATED

Not Snow Not Sugar

They say that "even Homer nods".  If a comparison is to be made with Homer and AA, it's more likely Homer Simpson not Homer. 

In my haste to release this post, I failed to include one very key detail.  

The KRG trade receivables are payable to Pearl Petroleum Limited not DG.  The use of the word "share" in DG's financials Note 17 and 28 is crystal clear. 

What does that mean?

• DG's is unable to sell the TR because it does not have title. There could be restrictions imposed by PPL's contract with the KRG on transfer of title or assignment of proceeds by PPL to a third party, here DG.  As noted elsewhere, certain unspecified actions by PPL require 100% shareholder agreement.  It is not clear if this is one of those decisions.  If it is, then another shareholder--perhaps from among the three 10% shareholders--OMV, MOL, and RWEST--might frustrate a transfer.
• As PPL is the payee/owner of the TR, any payments from the KRG go to PPL.  As such, there is the theoretical possibility that such proceeds could be trapped at PPL.  Presumably, PPL has been structured to avoid third party debt with shareholders providing any needed debt financing.  But there ae other liabilities that could interfere with the transfer of funds from PPL to DG.  For example, claims of environmental damages by the KRG, other contractual liabilities, or other third party damage, etc. 
• As I read Note 28, the aggregate KRG TR owned by PPL are some USD 2.04 billion.  What that suggests is that if the KRG pays $100 to PPL, DG's share is $35.  Meaning in effect that for DG to collect the entire USD 713 million, the KRG will have to pay PPL USD 2.04 billion.  That certainly seems to lower the probability of a prompt payment and perhaps even payment. 
• And to state the obvious, sukuk holders' do not have direct access to PPL's assets including the TR, but have access through DG's equity stake in PPL.  Not  a particularly comfortable place to be in. 

One other note and that's Note 28.  PPL is charging the KRG interest.  Contrary to an earlier erroneous statement by AA, DG is accruing interest to income but is not increasing the balance of TR.  Rather it is deducting this amount from Provisions on its balance sheet.  

DG’s ability to repay its creditors depends on the company’s ability to generate cash.  

In this post we'll look at Trade Receivables.  These are accrued amounts owed by customers that have yet to be paid, that is, converted from receivables into cash. 

DG is having a problem (first euphemism of the post) converting TR to cash.  If you bill your customers and they don't pay promptly or don't pay at all, you have a problem. 

Dana Gas Trade Receivables - USD Millions
	1Q2017	2016	2015	2014	2013	2012	2011
Total Receivables	999	982	950	992	795	599	475
KRG	712	713	727	746	515	365	247
Egypt	283	265	221	233	274	234	228
% Total Equity	36%	35%	33%	37%	31%	25%	21%
% Retained Earnings	163%	163%	137%	172%	165%	172%	216%

  Source:  DG Annual Reports.

1. DG income is dependent on two customers – the Kurdish Regional Government (“KRG”) in Iraq and Egypt.  As AA learned in business school, a successful business needs a good product and a diverse and credit worthy base of customers who actually pay.  In baseball a 50% average (for a hitter) would be outstanding.  In business, however, it isn’t good enough!
2. Recently Zora UAE has begun generating revenue but only about 5% of the total.
3. Total receivables have more than doubled since FYE 2011 largely concentrated in KRG “paper".

Dana Gas Trade Receivables - Past Due Analysis
	Total Amount	Current	Past Due Not Impaired
Year	USD Millions		<120 Days	>120 Days
1Q2017	999	7%	5%	88%
2016	982	5%	14%	81%
2015	950	8%	8%	85%
2014	992	11%	19%	70%
2013	795	16%	18%	67%
2012	599	17%	17%	66%
2011	475	23%	33%	45%

DG Annual Reports Note on Trade Receivables.

1. Over the period FYE 2011 through 1Q2107, the proportion of past due receivables has almost doubled, while the amount of current receivables has declined dramatically.
2. While DG’s presentation is technically “true”, that information does not convey the extent of the past dues. 
3. Yes, some 88% of TR are past due by more than 120 days.  But that's akin to the difference between saying “I hit Jimmy” and “I hit Jimmy and killed him”.  Both are technically true statements about the same event.  Yet, the first is misleading.  (Second euphemism of the post.)
4. Reading DG’s financials one might think that because TR are classified as “Current Assets”, the outward limit would be one accounting cycle or 1 year.  So no TR would be past due more than 365 days. That’s clearly not the case.  
5. From Slide 11 in DG’s 1Q2017 Investor Presentation, it’s clear that a good portion of TR date from 2014 and earlier.   
6. Side Note: DG charged the KRG past due interest at 9% according to its no doubt “Shari’ah” interpretation of its contract beginning in 2013.  In 2016 following an arbitration award, some USD 121 million in accrued interest for 2015 and 2016 was reversed, being the difference between the accrued amount and the Arbitration approved rate of Libor plus 2%.  If you use the amounts of billing and collections shown in the slide, you will have an unexplained difference (even when including the 2015 and 2016 interest reversals) which likely is the effect of other interest transactions.   There's only a minimum problem of USD 4 million constant difference on the Egyptian TR.
7. As per Slide 11, KRG collections over the period 2015 through 1Q2017 were USD 175 million and billings were some USD 246 million.  Note  
8. For the purpose of this analysis, we’ll apply collections on a LIFO basis (against current billings) and FIFO (against the oldest billings).  Billings are actually applied as per contract terms, which are unknown, but this exercise will give us a range of possible outcomes. 
9. If the USD 175 is applied on a LIFO basis, then some USD 700 million plus is more than 2 years past due.
10. If the USD is applied on a FIFO basis, then some USD 500 million is more than 2 years past due. 
11. Either way that’s a dismal picture.  
12. As the table immediately above indicates, at FYE 2014 there were substantial past due amounts from prior years.  Given the KRG’s share of TR, there are likely to be substantial amounts of KRG receivables past due for many years.  AA is guessing 5 or more years.  Some clear present value implications.  
13. Collections from Egypt over the same period were some USD 217 million and billings USD 267 million.  Note Egypt TR at FYE 2014 were USD 233 million.  
14. On a FIFO basis, Egypt receivables would be more current with substantial amounts close to 2 years past due. 
15. On a LIFO basis, the past due tenor would lengthen out to more years. 

The presentation of past due receivables in DG’s financials raises some interesting questions for the Company and its auditors. 

1. As per DG’s financials, TR are generally contractually due between 30 to 60 days.  At what “time” point does a receivable that is past due cease to be a current asset?  AA would think that receivables past due over 1 year would no longer be “current” assets to say nothing of those overdue for multiple years. 
2. If receivables are overdue an inordinate amount of time, when does an allowance become necessary?

Let’s turn to DG’s 2016 Annual Report for their “case”. 

1. Accounting Policies Note 2 Page 58 "Loans and Receivables Loans and receivables are non-derivative financial assets with fixed or determinable payments that are not quoted in an active market. They are included in current assets, except for maturities greater than 12 months after the end of the reporting period. These are classified as non-current assets. The Group’s loans and receivables comprise ‘trade and other receivables’."  
2. Accounting Policies Note 2 Page 59 "Trade and Other Receivables Accounts receivable are stated at original invoice amount less a provision for any uncollectible amounts. An estimate for doubtful accounts is made when collection of the full amount is no longer probable. Bad debts are written off when there is no possibility of recovery."  
3. Financial Risk Management Note 32 Page 81 "(i) Trade Receivables The trade receivables arise from its operations in UAE, Egypt and Kurdistan Region of Iraq. The requirement for impairment is analysed at each reporting date on an individual basis for major customers. As majority of the Group’s trade receivable are from Government related entities no impairment was necessitated at this point." 

AA’s observations: 

1. Despite stated maturity, the Trade Receivables haves whiskers on them like the old undisposed of items in your refrigerator (see picture above) that start stirring around when the door closes and the light goes out.  Including them (the TR) in current assets on the basis of dishonored contractual maturities does not seem appropriate. (Third euphemism of the post).  Any more than referring to the feral food inhabiting the dark corners of your refrigerator as “fresh”.  At the very minimum, the “time” buckets in the aging should convey more accurately the extent of past dues, e.g., past due 1 year, 2 to 3 years, 4 to five years, and over five years. 
2. DG’s non-impairment argument based on obligors being "government related" is laughable.  Assuming DG are correct, then there is no need for provisions or worry about Puerto Rico. It’s not only government-related, it’s government.  No one seriously thinks that PR is a solid credit.  
3. But there's more. No one should be mistaking the KRG or Egypt for investment grade or even BB borrowers.  Both Iraq and Egypt are rated B (non-investment grade).  There is a world of credit quality difference between say Switzerland and Iraq. 
4. When a B credit does not pay for a prolonged period, provisions are not just a good idea.  They’re required. Even if the obligor is a government related. 
5. What makes the argument even more absurd is it application to the KRG.  Not only is the KRG a sub-sovereign, but at some point in the (near) future, Baghdad is likely to reinforce that sub-sovereign status with vigor, perhaps with the help of two neighboring countries.  Then DG may face an argument similar to the one it is making about the Sukuk: that the existing contract with the KRG is illegal and unenforceable and thus the debt is void.  

AA can understands why the DG has adopted its stance on the TR: self preservation.    

But AA does not understand their external auditors’ position, though I will give them credit for noting in their 2016 FYI audit report page 41: "Considering the uncertainty around recoverability of trade receivables from KRG, we have included an emphasis of this matter in this audit report."   

AA will be taking a look at DG's ability to generate cashflow in a coming post.  

Perhaps this post and that one will suggest reasons why DG have thought it “wise” to adopt their “clever boots” maneuver on the Sukuk.