Member Info for ElvisRocks

After 23 minutes of trade share price down 12% with an 11% spread

What does a proposed transaction not including Cineworld itself mean that is not subject to the Takeover Code, does this mean Cineworld Plc will remain? Is that how others are reading it?

I’ll steer clear of that one LTH, looks like the darling judge Conway presided over the legal cases over the multi billion Allan Stanford Ponzi scheme collapse, so am reckoning she is no fool … must also admit that a lot of good (potential) work was done by others on this BB, HNS77 for example and mountainous back in May but think I’ll stick with the rocking horse farting, we have more chance with that!

http://www.sibliquidation.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Conway-J.-SIB-v-TD-Judgment.pdf

Equally still agree though the $1.2bn synergies award in favour of Cineplex is somewhat counter intuitive…

LTH, you’ve got as much chance as getting a rocking horse to fart 3 times in succession on this, that others may have got this to the attention of non executive board members is commendable, they would then take it forward with their legal team.

Like I say try getting the rocking horse to fart, you’ll have more chance of success with that!

Good find all of you on this back in May 22, wish I had been around in May 22 to join the outrage at this …

https://www.lse.co.uk/ShareChat.asp?ShareTicker=CINE&share=Cineworld&thread=E5E7B7F6-2DBB-47D8-A3C9-CC797AD0A4FB

Now see what you are saying LTH and that it has been discussed previously on this BB

https://financialpost.com/news/dare-heiress-put-her-own-interests-ahead-of-those-of-the-corporation-judge-says-dismissing-lawsuit

LTM, you are I were not the lawyers, beancounters or judge in this case whatever everyone was smoking

it’s a bit like the Oscar Pistorius case in South Africa where did he shoot his girlfriend - of course he did - but the arguments about the sentence came down to endless points of law argued over months in the court

LTH your post “wait what” is precisely the point abou5 shareholder losses that the judge dismissed, in his / their little word shareholders were irrelevant in this case as was covid

The commercial reality was that covid caused a big chunk of shareholder share price diminution but that was also irrelevant in the judges mind

Have a read of the judgement LTM and search for the word “synergies” it does sound counter intuitive but that it what the judge reckoned the amount that was due to cineplex (for costs that had to go on and incur and revenues they lost) as a result of Cineworld pulling out of a transaction they were not allowed to. Mooky and co didn’t negotiate a break fee. Stupid I know but that’s what their beancounter argued within the points of law they thought was relevant

Suppose it’s a bit like the twitter deal where twitter believed it had the right to force Elon Musk not to back out of.

Hi All, I’ve had another close look at the Canadian judgement, at the end of the day the judge awarded a $1bn amount for lost synergies, nothing due to covid and nothing for “losses for shareholders” arguing the transaction was between two companies and cineplex were not a proxy or agent for its shareholders in this instance

As much as this is a galling amount of money those synergies will largely exist now, so why not reconstitute the transaction to try and get some of these rather than, from cineplex put Cineworld to zero with money it can’t pay or an appeal judgement it may (or may not) win. So I think there is a lot of merit to the point this is what could happen with the Regal (US) business and a separate exit for the UK business and UK Plc listing.

Or put another way, why would cineplex - as the biggest credito- pursue the option of putting Cineworld under when it can’t pay damages at the end of the day, also known as the “lose lose” option to both parties

Good to see I’m not on your naughty step Wolff with FigTreeHarry, Magnus and Maidit, at one l point I was a office pencil sharpener and disgruntled university student… think my professor would be advocating “graduate cum laude” by now!

You probably don’t get better Jewish connections than this in terms of A listers A league … add George Clooney, Lady Gaga and Bradley Cooper and you would have a ear full house …

https://www.celebritynetworth.com/richest-businessmen/ceos/michael-ovitz-net-worth/

Think Adam Aaron is at risk of sounding like Donald Trump when he puts certain words in CAPITALS in his tweets…

Moors my point is where there is monies to be madeJews will be and it is difficult to break in if you are not from that faith … you could argue nepotism is in evidence with the appointed CFO (Nisan Cohen) also being from that faith. Imagine trying to tackle governance and put your foot down on the big issues, you will probably be shown the door ..

The Canadian judge however caught them out and successfully put them in their place with their incorrect views just like the judge did with Lord Brown of BP when he was outed on a sex scandal

And ps: these arnt anti semitic views like Kanye West made just observations in our pc correct world.

Also it’s just dawned on me how many Jews run or have run Hollywood … Steven Spielberg, Harvey Weinstein, Bog Igur, Mooky and his brother, Adam Aaron, other studios Warner Brothers, Paramount and Universal Studios all founded by Jews I believe .. plus Tom Cruise’s agent …

Adam Aron on tweet overload today with 4 tweets all related to AMC Share Price … doubt his tweeting will succeed this time around …

https://twitter.com/CEOAdam?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor

A tiktok of Maidit and his chums marrying to make up wordings of RNS which do not exist!

https://vm.tiktok.com/ZMF37U9mK/

Maidit, I must add that you are also a liar as I just checked there was no RNS on 28 September and even if there was, it is rathe4 disingenuous for you to manufacture the wording like you have, in the last sentence eg “any amounts owed to cineplex will rank …”

In fact you have manufactured the whole wording of an RNS which did not exist.

You are probably now an ostrich on the water, ie your duck ass is in the air in shame!

Maidit, I think you are a quack in other words a duck and you quack like one and look like one. Your posts on this forum are those of a looney who has lost the plot with no concept of reality … please go away and swim back in your pond, quack quack!

Bulls it sets out in para 153 of the court judgement how the ridiculous $1bn of damages is computed, all computed under points of law and beancounter arguments get off on from a forensic perspective

They’ve probably all had a jolly party with their wines glasses full getting off on the wording and arguments put forward.

On a separate note, the court document is actually a good read from a number of perspectives including how Mooky and co got caught out as u reliable witnesses in the whole court thing. Equally can’t be fun going to court to defend a $1bn claim.

In showbiz speak Rebeccka Vardy got caught out on this v Colleen Rooney

Hello Wolff, yes I remember you saying that, but also had a look at the audit report this morning to see exactly what the auditors said they did in forming their opinion that people rely on, that’s why audit reports are there for ffs ..

Based on a reading of the court judgement, that is almost totally one sided in favour of cineplex, would have to be strong counter argument to convince me

That’s why I mentioned auditors didn’t have the balls to force a provision, that in itself would have forced a run on a listed company (due to not being a good g concern). Far better,which is what 5he auditors did is say this “is a very complex area”, that way if it goes tits up nowhere can bring a claim against the auditors as it would be a never ending mountainous effort to prove your point against them, in law

Same goes for Carillion and Thomas Cook going bust, far better find ways to “say it is ok” than qualify a listed company. Waste of space this stuff. Auditors will never qualify a bit listed company on the basis of an alternative view, goes back to Enron and Worldcom days …