We would love to hear your thoughts about our site and services, please take our survey here.
London South East prides itself on its community spirit, and in order to keep the chat section problem free, we ask all members to follow these simple rules. In these rules, we refer to ourselves as "we", "us", "our". The user of the website is referred to as "you" and "your".
By posting on our share chat boards you are agreeing to the following:
The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. As a user you agree to any information you have entered being stored in a database. You agree that we have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic or board at any time should we see fit. You agree that we have the right to remove any post without notice. You agree that we have the right to suspend your account without notice.
Please note some users may not behave properly and may post content that is misleading, untrue or offensive.
It is not possible for us to fully monitor all content all of the time but where we have actually received notice of any content that is potentially misleading, untrue, offensive, unlawful, infringes third party rights or is potentially in breach of these terms and conditions, then we will review such content, decide whether to remove it from this website and act accordingly.
Premium Members are members that have a premium subscription with London South East. You can subscribe here.
London South East does not endorse such members, and posts should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Ltd, or its affiliates.
PW so hard to actually rationalise anything about this so really hope they do give up.
For example let’s say for arguments sake the judge saw all the merits of Cineplex case and ordered Cineworld to meet their request effectively ordering them to buy the business for the original price of $2bn - it’s bleeding obvious that It would fail ICA approval as the new entity would have a much higher risk of failing (harming Canadian economy jobs etc) then the business that actually exists and is trading today! So Cine would still have to renage on the deal as no ICA approval - you really couldn’t make this up!
HNS_77, haha "impartial" he was very polite to their defence team, when it came to ours asking him questions he developed a huge chip on his shoulder, and then saying "I'm trying to get one step ahead of you" he was arrogant, but that soon changed haha
Cineworlds defence team are on the ball. They are world class and running rings around Cineplex.
You are right HSN_77 Cineplex should throw in the towel and end this court case.
Watched it also and with throughout I try to keep an objective and impartial hat on.
Demolition job today by Cineworld counsel on both witnesses imho. Highly skilled and meticulous effort on the second one.
Excellent summary thanks HNS_77 :-)
So just finished watching the court case and some great exchanges today between Cineworld defence and the so called "impartial" expert summerising the events around Investment Canada Approval (ICA) aspect of the case.
Yet again a strong performance from the Cineworld legal team and much better then the relatively uneventful ending of yesterdays proceedings. Key points really underlined a post I made a few days ago as follows.
Cine defence made the point that Cineworld could not have provided the type of undertakings required to achieve ICA approval if it could not a) agree to conditional undertakings around employment, capex etc that were in submission pre Covid which had clearly changed and it could not be assured it had a prospect of meeting given the uncertainty around business operations of Cineplex b) That the actual completion of the deal may have posed a greater risk to the stability of the combined entity and therefore harming the Canadian business and the impacts that would have and that this expert had no knowledge of those potential impacts to make a judgement on whether Cineworld was not acting "in good faith" by not completing the ICA process.
The witnessess lack of impartiality was discredited both in the language used in his report to describe the situation as well as the fact that he appeared to distort the timeline of events leaving out key milestones of when Cine did actually endeavour to respond to queries and making it looked like there was no engagement between submissions.
To me it is quite clear the Cineplex strategy of trying to compartmentalise the different aspects i.e. Cineworld agreed to complete an ICA process by x date is not working and that hopefully the judge looks at the broader picture and evidence as a whole to see that viewing these in isolation makes no logical sense.
No court action next week - who knows maybe some sensible discussions will take place behind the scenes and end this grubby attempt to extract money through a pointless court case ends here.