Dana Gas Restructuring: The “Art” of the Deal

Unconstrained Mirth at the Announcement of an Imagined Successful Negotiation  

Asian analysts are divided on whether the picture is from 13 May or 12 July of this year.  As you’ll recall, Dana Gas announced its “successful” restructuring on the former date, “accretive to all stakeholders”.  On 12 July the conclusion of another allegedly fantastic deal was announced.  By at least one account (Twitter?) this one “irrevocably sealed” with a handshake. 

Early on in its negotiations with creditors, DG adopted a rather pugnacious strategy, reminding AA of the “hit them back harder” strategy advocated in a business book published first in 1987 by a self-proclaimed dealmeister under the same title as this Blogpost. A remarkable coincidence!  Hence, this remark.  

Let’s review how DG was able to apply this “winning” strategy and negotiate a “fantastic” deal with its creditors. 

On 3 May 2017 DG issued a press release stating that it would commence restructuring negotiations with its sukuk holders because its cash flow problems made full repayment of principal on 31 October 2017 impossible as it needed to conserve cash.  

On 17 May 2017 the creditors announced that they hired advisors for the restructuring.  DG announced that it hired its own set of advisors on 5 June. 

Subsequently, on 6 June 2017, in a conference call with sukukholders DG announced a set of principles which it later codified in a 13 June press release:  

1. Illegality:  Due to changes in interpretation of Shari’ah, the existing sukuk was no longer compliant with Shari’ah or UAE law. Consequently, DG in good conscience could not make any payments, including the upcoming profit payments in May and October 2017. 
2. New instrument:  To be Shar’iah compliant.  
3. Tenor:  4 years with bullet repayment.  
4. Profit Distributions (Interest): Less than half of the 9% rate on the sukuk with provision for unspecified amount to be paid in kind (PIK), i.e., additional debt.  
5. Prepayment:  At company’s discretion with no prepayment penalty. Something not usually granted on a fixed rate debt instrument.  

DG also advised that it had asked the eminent courts of Sharjah to rule on the legality of the existing sukuk.  

This was the company’s first offer. Like anyone else negotiating in the suq, including the suq al mal, probably an opening offer intended to start negotiations with the expectation that that final terms would differ.  

In quick order thereafter the company advised that it had obtained restraining orders in Sharjah, the Cayman Islands, (effective 13 June), and the UK (apparently effective June 16) preventing the sukukholders’ agents from taking action against the company to enforce their rights.  Rather quick action given DG’s announcement that it hired advisors on 5 June.  

On 27 July DG advised the sukukholders that its “previously contemplated offer” (apparently the 13 June “proposal”) “is now off the table, and that the Company is pursuing litigation driven outcomes” as per its 31 July press release.        

What happened?   

According to an apologia for DG published by Al-Khaleej newspaper –available on DG’s website--under the title “Dana Gas has, from the outset, been transparent and sought fair solutions for Sukuk holders and has been justified in its actions to protect all of its stakeholders.”  Move over Gulf News you've got a strong competitor in local "journalism".

What rather sad and unprofessional behaviour by the sukukholders forced what was no doubt DG’s reluctant hand?  

In Al-Khaleej’s words:  

”However surprisingly (and unlike previous and normal practice) the committee refused to even meet and instead, in a very unusual and hostile ill-advised step according to Houlihan Lokey, one of the leading international financial advisers specialising in debt restructuring, the Company received threatening letters and a draft default notice that would have greatly harmed both the Company's ability to secure its outstanding cash receivables and realise the value of its enormously valuable assets; and negatively affecting all stakeholders including the Sukuk holders themselves.” 

First, a shout out to the phrase “its enormously valuable assets”.  Those would be the ones that over a rather prolonged period have been unable to generate an acceptable ROA or ROE, even ignoring risk, to say nothing of generating cash in a timely fashion.  

Second, earlier like Al-Khaleej I believed that HL was one of the leading international financial advisers specializing in debt restructurings.  Taking Al-Khaleej’s quote of HL at face value, my opinion has changed. I’m guessing that it’s more likely they were experts in restructuring church and charitable organization debts where more genteel creditor behavior is more likely to be commonplace.  In purely commercial deals creditors can be quite hostile when an obligor announces its inability to pay--an event which highlights the manifest failure of the lenders’ or investors’ underwriting of the deal at inception.   

In general debt restructurings are not pleasant affairs.  AA has been regaled by his elder brother and other equally reliable sources with stories of irate creditors verbally abusing the obligor and its advisors as lacking integrity and business sense, threatening to call a default and “destroy” the borrower.  And generally behaving “shirty”.  

In one case an unsecured creditor threw a rather heavy object at an obligor’s outside advisors when that advisor had the temerity to note that unsecured creditors were lower in legal priority of payment than secured ones.  In another case where an aggressive creditor rejected an initial restructuring proposal with a string of profanities directed at a former senior US government official who had returned to his lawyerly and advisory roots.  

Even more so if the obligor is a serial defaulter as is the case with Dubious Gas.  On top of that the company raised a rather preposterous defense against payment after having promised in the sukuk not to challenge the legality of the instrument.  See  Page 108 "Events of Default" (c) in the Prospectus.  

To add insult to injury DG prepaid other creditors in preference to the sukukholders sometime prior to 11 May.  Some cash is more worthy of preservation that other cash, I suppose.  A reasonable creditor would seem justified in ascribing manifest bad faith to the obligor. 

No wonder the creditors made the threat they did.  More here.  A perhaps rougher elbowed group of creditors would have called default immediately.   

Finally, according to the Al-Khaleej account, the threatening letter was sent on 23 May 2017.  On 6 June the company conducted a conference call with sukuholders.  Not a meeting in person, but a meeting nonetheless.   No doubt the sukukholders were less than enthusiastic about DG’s proposal as would be “normal practice”, especially given DG's less than good faith behaviour outlined above..  

Whatever the case here, subsequently, DG was quick off the mark (especially if advisors were hired on 5 June) with a blitz of legal actions. To boot the eminent courts of Sharjah seemed squarely on its side.  DG had seized the initiative from DG’s creditors.    A providential prepayment of other bank obligations prior to 11 May 2017 reduced the risk of creditor contagion.   

From all the above, it sure looks to AA like DG was preparing to take a hard line well before the 23 May “threat”.  

But DG has more up its sleeve, according to Bloomberg, DG also noted that the assets in the Trust--primarily, the company’s fine Egyptian assets--had dismal returns. DG have well-established track record in this field and were clearly speaking from experience and expertise.  DG noted that if it were to unwind the sukuk ab initio (because of its illegality) and recast the “profit payments” in excess of the assets true return as principal repayments it would then owe the sukukholders only USD 55 million.  On the other hand were it to covert the sukuk to equity in the fine Trust Assets, the sukukholders would owe DG some USD 150 million.  You will perhaps note an apparent contradiction between asserting these fine assets generated minimal returns and a valuation of some USD 850 million.  Such are the mysteries of “Islamic” finance and GCC finance.   For more on DG’s strategy/threat see my post here.  

Given the propensity of the eminent courts of Sharjah to see things DG’s way, including allowing the company to pay a dividend in the midst of a debt restructuring and in contravention of the UK High Court’s ruling, and basically refusing to apply other foreign court decisions on DG, it doesn’t seem unreasonable that they would see things DG’s way on this topic as well.    

One side note, investors who bothered to read the sukuk prospectus would not have been surprised by the actions of the eminent courts of Sharjah.  

Let’s take a look at the fantastic deal that DG secured for itself from an apparent position of strength and a no-nonsense take-no-prisoners approach.   

1. Tenor:  Three years instead of DG’s originally proposed four years.  Commencing from October 31, 2017.  
2. Profit Rate: 4% instead of the company’s 3% rate.  A partial win, but note that the average life of the sukuk has been shortened dramatically by the down payment and promised prepayment, though as structured the latter does not appear to be mandatory. 
3. PIK – No PIK.  
4. Principal Repayment:  No bullet repayment. DG will use USD 385 million of its cash to make a principal payment on signing.  Assuming sukukholders are smart enough to sign up for Tranche A (immediate payout at a discount), the principal amount of the sukuk will be reduced from USD 700 million to USD 420 million, roughly a 36% reduction.  
5. Prepayment:  Another USD 105 million prepayment no later than 31 October 2019, 15 months from anticipated signing in August 2018.  If made, the prepayment will reduce the sukuk to USD 315 million or 55% of the original USD 700 million.  If DG fails to prepay, the profit rate will increase to 6%.  Failure to pay appears not to constitute a default.  
6. Additional Obligations:  Promise to use all net free cash from NIOC settlement or sale of the fine Egyptian assets to buyback sukuk under certain undisclosed terms.  Neither the NIOC settlement nor the proceeds from the sale of the Egyptian assets are collateral.  Both of these are potential but probably not highly probability future events (assets).  A sale of the fine Egyptian assets has probably been harmed by DG’s trash talk about their multi-year disappointing performance not to mention the whiskers on the associated receivables. Recent moves by the USA to apply financial pressure to Iran could reasonably be expected to frustrate an NIOC payment if settlement were reached.  What is notable here though is that DG has accepted an obligation to use the NIOC settlement as a source of prepayment even though it is not part of the Trust Assets.   
7. Dividends:  Ability to pay 5% of paid-in-capital as dividends subject to certain undisclosed minimum cash maintenance requirements.  Potentially a stake into the heart of the sukukholders’ repayment prospects if this is not structured properly.  

It doesn’t seem that DG’s hard-nosed “clever socks” strategy has resulted in any real benefit to the company in terms of the restructuring unless we assume that a less confrontational negotiating style would have resulted in repayment of the full amount upon signing as well as board and senior management members pledging their first born offspring to the sukukholders.  

Not only did DG not get its wishes, but also DG has committed its cash windfall from the KRG settlement to repayment of the sukuk.    

But there’s more. 

Real damage has been done to the company.  

The cash drain is happening at the time when DG asserts it needs cash for needed development of its operations.   DG's clever socks strategy has burned a lot of bridges.  

Existing creditors and potential creditors with half a brain (note that caveat) have probably been alienated; though DG may be able to “bank on” bankers’ and investors’ chronic ADD and the rather large bloc of creditors and investors with little credit skills or sense.  See the Abraaj saga for examples of the latter.  

There is another lesson here.                   

If you’ve found what appears to be a clever business strategy in a book, check out the bona fides of the author before you act.  What is the business track record of the author? Is the author a true "captain of industry"?  Or been involved in serial shipwrecks?  

If you also see the author, even if he or she claims to be a billionaire, hawking steaks, wine, or dubious educational institutions on the TV, it may be a testament to his or her (a) less than stellar track record in business and thus (b) lack of real business acumen.  

After all, how many successful businessmen or women engage in such peripheral activities when they could earn additional billions in their more lucrative mainframe pursuits?  Lloyd Blankfein hasn’t come around to Chez Arqala offering gardening or pool services.  Warren Buffet isn't doing reality TV.

When reality collides that violently with image, it’s probably wise to heavily discount the advice. 

It's also wise to ensure a sound understanding of the correlation of forces.  If conditions are not good, even a "wise" strategy can fail.

Dana Gas Strategy From Clever Boots to Clever Socks?

DG's New Strategy May Be Actually More Clever Than Depicted Above

As you’ve no doubt heard, following rejection from its creditors, Dana Gas withdrew its imagined generous offer of an exchange bond stripped of the conversion option and at an “attractive” 3% fixed interest rate compared to the 9% the Company paid until its moral principles “forced” it to withhold payment because “evolving” interpretations of Shari’ah voided the “Islamic” character of the sukuk. 

At that time according to press reports (Reuters here), the Company said it would pursue "litigation-driven outcomes". 

An initial assessment might be that Dana Gas has taken further leave of what scant senses it might have had.  Scant because its “clever boots” first strategy seemed an unnecessary provocation to the creditors and unlikely to succeed.  DG has a perfectly viable argument for a restructuring without resorting to what are almost certainly distortions of Shari’ah. 

On that score the uncharitable out there among you might say why should there be a difference between overall management of the business and financial management.  AA who fancies himself a charitable sort would of course never make such a comment. 

According to the report by Bloomberg, DG’s “evolved” strategy is based on successfully litigating one of the two following outcomes: 

1. Unwind the sukuk transaction from origin, repay the outstanding principal (roughly USD 690 million) but offset the allegedly now non-Shari’ah compliant “profit” (interest) payments made over the life of the sukuk (some USD 635 million over the life of the transaction). 
2. Convert the sukuk to equity in the Trust Assets (note the potentially fatal limitation agreed by the Sukuk holders in their initial irrational exuberance).  Based on profit earned by the Egyptian assets and the value of these assets now, DG reportedly believes that the sukuk holders owe it USD 150 million.  Details in the Bloomberg article.   

Abu Yusuf certainly has been a busy chap parsing the law.

Some observations. 

At first hearing a litigation-driven strategy sounds like a crackpot idea.

But there have been rulings in the past by UAE courts (Abu Dhabi based) that support such an approach, though AA understands that judicial precedent is not binding in the UAE. Back in the 1980s or thereabouts, UAE banks’ practice of lending on an overdraft basis and capitalizing interest “came a cropper” when borrowers couldn’t or wouldn’t pay.  NBAD took one such borrower to court.  The borrower noted he had recently “seen the light” and as a good Muslim could not pay interest as it would violate Shari’ah.  Producing bank statements he “proved” that on a cash-on-cash basis he had already repaid the original principal amount of his borrowings and more.  The learned judge ruled in his favor.  NBAD had to issue a check to the borrower for some million AED (the “overpayment”) and cancel the balance of his loan on its books.  One would hope that there has been change in judicial thinking in the Emirates since then but one doesn’t always get the “hope and change” wished for.   

As I read DG’s initial announcement, a key point of DG’s strategy is the assertion that evolving interpretation of Shari’ah made the transaction non-compliant. 

One could argue that that means that at some point the transaction was Shari’ah compliant.  If that is the case, then the date the transaction became non-compliant becomes very important in terms of the legality of profit payments.  Those before the new interpretation were perfectly halal.  Those after not. 

One might argue that the date of DG’s announcement of non-compliance is prima facie the date of non-compliance.  If DG were aware of non-compliance before that date but were silent, then should it be subject to paying damages to the sukuk holders perhaps equal to or greater than the profit payments they received between the end of Shari’ah compliance and the date of announcement?  Does Shari’ah impose a greater obligation on a mudarib with respect to rab al maal than a conventional loan arrangement would?

If Shari’ah holds that a change of interpretation is retroactive back to the inception of the transaction—which AA doubts--, then despite their best intentions the parties did not actually agree to a Shari’ah based transaction but instead agreed to conventional (non-Shari’ah) bond.  If so, then shouldn’t the non-Shari’ah terms as negotiated and agreed by the parties bind the parties?  Indeed with this development, might the sukuk holders be entitled to insist on a non-Shari'ah bond?

A telling point could well be if DG has engaged in non-Shari’ah based transactions.  This would establish that they do not only finance on a Shari’ah basis. As to the first point, on page 78 of its 2016 annual report Dana refers to the “Shari’ah tranche” of the Zora financing which clearly means there was at least one non-Shari’ah tranche to this financing.  That indicates to AA that DG’s conversion to “Islamic” principles is of recent date and no doubt feigned. 

As regards Scenario #2, the Bloomberg article contains an assertion ascribed to the Company that the Egyptian assets only generated USD 60 million during the life of the sukuk.  If the Bloomberg report is true, this is a rather shocking admission by DG’s management of failure.  Equity holders may want to take note.

More to the point, sharp-eyed creditors, pardon me, the creditors have demonstrated scant sharp eyes so far so let AA rephrase. The creditors’ advisors will no doubt parse this calculation carefully.  Presumably it does not include “profit” (interest) payments because the determination of profit is before the sharing of profit between mudarib and investors. 

As regards the USD 450 million valuation for the Egyptian assets, Section 3.2 of the offering memorandum refers to the distribution of the “realisation of the net proceeds” the Trust Assets.  AA is no lawyer but that would seem to argue that DG cannot merely give the sukuk holders shares in the Egyptian venture based on its own valuation, but rather that the Egyptian assets have to be sold.  If the proceeds are not enough to repay the sukuk, other of the Trust Assets have to be sold.  Since this is a limited recourse transaction, if all the Trust Assets are sold and the sukuk is not redeemed in full, then the creditors have no further recourse.  Requiring sale of the assets could upend DG’s strategy of claiming funds back from the creditors.  It is not without danger to the creditors given the limited recourse nature of the sukuk.  But since the creditors have a weak hand given that feature of the deal, a credible threat to “wreck” the Company might bring it to its senses.  If not the sukuk holders might take comfort in making DG share their pain. 

That DG has adopted this highly risky second strategy suggests to AA that DG believes it has a good chance of winning the case, plans to beat creditors into submission though interminable court action in the UAE, or has run out of viable alternatives.  That is, this is a desperation play:  the Company sees no other option.  That implies that DG’s management has assessed that DG’s value is minimal.  The rejected four-year deal would have given breathing space for a miracle in the form of the receipt of a substantial arbitral payment, collection of receivables, etc.  With that deal off the table, the state of the emperor’s clothes or lack thereof will become obvious. 

As regards, victory in the courts or prolonging the legal battle, perhaps the “fix” is already in the home town court.  As noted in other posts at SAM, the December hearing date is one indication.  Another is the complex but highly convenient requirements of the Sharjah court to lift its injunction frustrating DG’s ability to comply with the London court’s requirements.

Alternatively, DG may be hoping to drag matters out in the lengthy judicial process in the UAE’s fine courts similar to the roughly six-years of legal to-ing and fro-ing  between the National Bank of Umm al Quwain and Global Investment House Kuwait, hoping that this will wear the creditors down. Some details here on that epic legal battle which was finally “settled” via an out of court settlement. 

AA hopes that Emirati courts and rulers understand the impact a court decision in DG’s favor would have on the legal credibility of the UAE judicial system, local companies’ access to cross-border financing, and more widely on “Islamic” finance beyond the UAE.   

AA notes, however, that “hope” isn't really a basis for investments or for correcting problems with investments.  As to AA's judicial "hope", “change” may as well prove elusive.