Roundtable Discussion; The Future of Mineral Sands. Watch the video here.
Tegop, I never said the judges decision was “impeccable” and that “perfect judgement was reached 100 per cent of the time” I dont know how you can infer that from what I actually said so must just assume that you are intentionally misrepresenting that. I said it may be the judgment is overturned. I will leave you and the others to hear what you want to hear and disregard and misrepresent the rest.
After all, perhaps the judge just doesn’t like the Cine investors, especially those on this board? Yeah, that must be it, it’s personal. I think we should start a petition against this biased….not just biased, but not smart…and also evil…so called judge. Everyone agree? There, that feels better. Now the share price should rise. Everyone who sold and the market has got it wrong, we are right.
This post is like an echo chamber. Everyone who is long on Cine agreeing the case was certainly wrongly decided - fine - but also wrongly asserting that the whole world believes that too. They do not. The vast majority of the investment community (non retail, who generally do not read this post) will have analysed the case wit their own lawyers and came to the conclusion it was a valid decision. Not necessarily the only decision that could have been made, but reasonable and valid. It may be it is overturned but it is also perfectly possible that it wont be. It may be that an out of court settlement is reached. The point I am making is that all the assertions that the case was obviously wrongly decided or there was corruption or the judge was biased etc are not correct. You don’t have to believe me but why dont you google the case name and read the numerous reports on the case by major law firms, barristers, legal journals and analysts and see what they say. It’s unfortunate if you dont like it but that is why the share price has built in alikely (although not only possible) outcome. It is possible that the decision will stand but with a different amount of damages. Those accusing the judge of corruption and bias based on the flimsiest of evidence and the backslapping agreement from others long on Cine is juvenile and amateur.
BlueBuxton, you ask :
“Where are you on Judge Barbara's calculation for damages being based on "lost" synergies. Synergies are only realised when companies are merged and this didn't happen”.
The whole point is that the merger didn’t happen, but damages are awarded to compensate Plex for that. The damages are designed to put Plex in the position it would have been in had Cine complied with its obligations and not tried to cancel the deal. Synergies just really mean “economies of scale”. Most of the economies of scale if the deal had gone ahead would have been for Plex’s business. There was an audit report presented to the court which calculated these. The court agreed and awarded Plex those damages (although other claims Plex made were rejected by the court). Cine lost. They botched the deal and the documents they signed did not allow them to walk away from the deal they struck, which had become a bad deal. The covid risk Cine’s. To be fair to Cine it was totally unprecedented and unexpected. That doesn’t matter. They was no conspiracy. No bias. No corruption. There are valid arguments on both sides but, as I said in the original message, all the posters who think the decisions was obviously wrong or flawed and the appeal will certainly win, have got it wrong. It may not be what you want to hear, but I cannot help that.
BlueBuxton, I am a UK M and A (mergers and acquisitions) partner in a major international law firm. I have done this type of work for 30 years.
I have seen many messages on this thread that assert the court case was wrongly decided/allege bias/expect the appeal will be successful etc etc. But none of the posters seem to have read the judgement or understand why it was made. Let me summarise. Cine were allowed to walk away from the deal if there was a “material adverse effect” after the deal was signed but before the deal closed, but it was expressly agreed in the documents that “outbreak of illness” would not be considered to be a “material adverse effect”. In other words, the deal was that Cine took that risk. Covid was an outbreak of illness. It was Cine’s risk and bad luck to them, it ruined the economics of the deal for them, but they had already signed up to that deal. Cine also argued to the court that the business was not being run “in the ordinary course of business” (which was a requirement of closing the deal), due to covid. But the judge pointed out that did not override the fact that Cine had accepted the risk of “outbreak of illness”. They signed the documents. They took the risk. It went wrong for them.
I do not understand why so many investors seem to assume the case was wrongly decided. It is actually quite simple and most lawyers I know who looked at it agree it was correctly decided and reflects correct Canadian law (I am a lawyer, by the way). It might get overturned (I hope it does), but there is nothing strange or unbelievable or obviously wrong in the judgment.
Looks like the company executives with all the experience and expertise they have and their teams of advisors disagree with you:
“Alarge focus will also be placed on nuclear power, including plans for building smaller modular reactors that take less time to construct.
The government said up to eight reactors could be delivered by 2030 - accelerating the pace from one a decade to one a year.”
This is pretty much all the strategy says. Its good for RR surely but nothing to start issuing market/price sensitive alerts about.
The January sales numbers for UK show Aston blowing every other luxury maker away, and that before the 707 was launched. Its a bumpy ride but time to get in in my view. The shorts have made some profits but the jump up in SP this morning shows signs they are closing their positions.
InsiderKnowledge, the directors cannot just make the company “go bankrupt” because they are unhappy with the judgement. Thye could end up in prison for making a viable company bankrupt. It was their petulance in giving a false message to the creditors and the court “take the SOA or we go bust” that was a big factor in the judge kicking out the scheme, as becomes apparent if the judgement is read. The company has large cash reserves and a moratorium from the bondholders, with a strong underlying business. The huge multi million pound upside incentive scheme they put in place for themselves as part of the SOA likely wound up the FCA and the judge too
The judge’s comments make it clear that a big factor in his decision was the message that the company gave the creditors that they either accept the scheme and get something or insolvency would follow, meaning they would get nothing.
The directors messed up big time in giving this statement as it is clearly not true (with the large cash reserves of the company and the bondholders giving grace and not taking action), and it may come across, especially to the less experienced and financially sophisticated customers, as an ultimatum. In addition, the company did not give enough details around how it reached the conclusions it had or what other options may exist.
Freshfields deserve some criticism too.
The judge has just said in effect - take another look, bear in mind what I have said, and come forward with another proposal.