Member Info for ElvisRocks

Not sure why ur getting so excited on a 1m buy, there were heaps of these and larger going through last Friday when volume was 82m for the day.

U taking a bit of heat today Wolff my love, what’s all that about?

Will sleep on it Wolff, but if you are not in cuckoo land, why aren’t you sounding the Fog Horns and telling us to sell as there is no hope and we should be bust and at zero pence by now?

Nope not taking it personally, just you are talking none sense again, I now think you know you are, your just having me on and get me to agree to your crazy theories

I think therefore I am going to have to do this the hard way and quote from the lawyers bill as to all the work they are doing as part of the Plan or Reorganisation, which includes shareholders… things like Prospectus’, communication with FCA, when to suspend shares etc

So I am not buying into your theory that the company is bust.

Watch this space I guess they say ….

If there is no money to make an offer to shareholders, we are basically at zero pence, now, today, in your view. We should basically pack up shop now.

Oh no, that fell flat at the first hurdle Wolff and we are about to fall out again, I wasn't expecting you to take quick advantage to try and get one over me.

The “tax advantage” is just the vehicle to do this (the DIP NOL Motion), a convenience or fluke for want of a better word, but the way exit strategies are created in this manner in bankruptcy situations. Back to the lawyers bill also.

Guess we are as far apart as ever because you are “refusing” to accept I have a point.

Yes agree Wolff, but how do we overcome strongly held views, in your case the debt is crucifying Cine or a wipeout is a possibility (that I diss you on and don’t believe it) and I believe the only was is up and DIP NOL Motion is the exit strategy for equity shareholders (that you diss).

We both end up calling each other jokers, and more because neither of us can easily see the validity of each other’s points (which are stark raving obvious to the submitter), we ridicule each other’s points of views.

Agree Hexam, doesn’t excuse it, think it is that I am passionate about my views, but don’t always check the underlying fact first. I can be like that.

Had you expressed your view that “it is the company filing for bankruptcy that is the DIP” (common google definition) I think I would have been quicker to have made the connection, I was more trying to reverse parallel park debtors / creditors terminology into place.

Still hold my view that DIP NOL Motion is the main one in town, after having triple checked the General Motors DIP Motion and the other dots that I have tried to join.

Hexam, a fulsome 100% unequivocal apology … you are correct on what DIP is, it is the company filing for bankruptcy now that I have googled it.

I am still standing my ground on DIP (or Debtors) NOL Motion as set out in General Motors Motion that I believe will be applied in Cines situation…

Oh go away Hexam, it’s like you are a child now, Cine (the Company) are NOT Debtors in Possession, the DIP are DEBTORS IN POSSESSION of CINE CREDITORS as it is they who have taken control of these liabilities, CINE now have no say in how these are discharged. Jefff has NOT confirmed what you were saying. Dream on.

CINE of course are responsible for the day to day running of the business but not discharge of the big loans. This isn’t even 4 year old primary school it’s kindagarden stuff. Basic Day 1 Bankcruptcy Law still.

I’m not surprised you couldn’t understand NOL DIP Motions, you were just thinking tax computations.

Jeff, thank you very much for your last post on DEBTORS IN POSSESSION and you are very welcome to this forum.

What are you did in that post is to confirm that DIP is NOT as Hexam states but rather DIP are the DIP “in Possession of the CINE creditor” that’s what bankruptcy process is at the end of the day, someone else has taken over the running of how CINE pays its liabilities…

So in short I was right and Hexam was wrong despite him trying to say otherwise and throwing his toys out of the cot.

What this looks like to me is two new Simba lions are forming here in me and you and old lions are getting pushed off the territory as yesterday’s boys. They have their heads in the sand as they cannot come to accept there will be a DIP NOL Motion … either because they “can’t get their heads round it” or “didn’t think of it” or “tunnel vision” probably all of the above.

Hi Hexam, I had just typed out a (respectful) response to your last post, you have generally been good to me on this forum and I have no issue with your posts.

I think it may have been me who confused as I introduced the word DEBTOR (as in the DIP / Ad Hoc Loan Group will still have a DEBTOR in their own books of account expecting payment unless they have passed on the loan to someone else which they could of). For that confusion I apologise

Where I still disagree with you is whilst Cine management may still be running the show (as in opening the doors the moviegoers) they are not in control in how the Cines big $bn loans are discharged and have taken over control of that from Cine management - they or their agents for example have to apply to the court for anything more than $1 million that is not in the ordinary course of day-to-day events

Thus they are DEBTORS IN POSSESSION OF CINEWORLDS DEBTS / CREDITORS thus have the power to propose a motion like the DIP NOL I have been banging on about

Wolff, go read NOL Motions proposed by DIPs, I’m afraid otherwise in asking you to go to the judge and say perjury is being committed as that’s what was in them lawyers bills …

Believe it’s about 4pm UK time the Texas Courts open so best you pop along ….

Hi jefff, re “the DIP are debtors in their own right, they are expecting the creditors to pay them” … whether that was my statement or Hexam’s, it needs a basic understanding of balance sheets to grasp. Hexam claims DIP are no way debtors.

What Hexam can’t understand are the DIP have two roles effectively- the first to get the money back for a DEBTOR in their own books of account

The second is that they have become “DEBTORS IN POSSESSION of CINEWORLDS CREDITORS” (ie how they will get the debts due to them paid). Hexam can’t seem to get past the term “debt” in bankruptcy law and “debtor in possession” or “debtor”

Hexam, to politely answer your Q on debt, I could have looked it up and worked it out if I had spent time looking at the various documents, neither of us were correct on interest payments/accruals, CIM I genuinely didn’t know, tax assets I could equally have researched but put the point out there on tax losses in the context of a DIP NOL Motion

My submitted hypothesis all along is I couldn’t care what the debts are (within reason), everybody is taking a haircut and the DIP have to offer shareholders something to “get them out” (via a General Meeting and probably Shareholder Prospectus)

DIP NOL Motion is the way to do it for a value, in my opinion, reasonably far north of 5p

Here here jefff, well said …. Wolff is full of the proverbial s…t …

Mr Wolffie, I am not a cross dresser but if I was I would say like Mrs T did, “the lady is not for turning” …

And as for the internet accrual none of us can say whether it was accrued or not because it is not clear whether the $1bn transaction (consummated on the 3rd of Nov) is in the books at 31 October as there is no breakdown of the $6bn loans

And oh yes you didn’t check that the interest charge may have derivative losses in it and you though advisory fees were in there.

Don’t throw stones in glass houses now Wolffie…

Nope, no mistake in the slightest, if you say so (on the NOL Motion to be proposed by the DIP) then you are going against all that stuff in the lawyers bill and their work with Takeover Panel / FCA. Of course I do not know for certain that’s what will happen as I am not an insider just have joined the dots …

Let’s try again …

1. The DIP are debtors in the own right, they are expecting the creditors to pay them

2. They became DIP on bankruptcy announcement, ie the are now “Debtors in Possession” of Cineworlds creditors, ie determine how best these can be paid or restructured

3. To do this, one way is to get “old shareholders out”, ie form a new co which requires shareholders to agree (in a General Meeting). Capturing the tax losses is (conveniently) the way to do it under bankruptcy law

Not wrong, absolutely not wrong, but I don’t control what happens. Have also got it correct between debtor / creditor and the difference between “Cine the company” and “Cine with a DIP in it” … not my fault if you can’t understand it

No I’m not being ostrich head in the sand, both of us are correct if you apply it that way

1. Secured Lenders are debtors in their own right, ie they are debtors expecting to be paid from the credit (creditor balance in Cine books)

2. They became “Debtors in Possession” of Cineworlds creditors, ie they call the shots on how these creditors will be discharged now

3. They effectively control the company / how it is run along with an Unsecured Creditors Committee

So because they (the DIP) want the company to succeed, they don’t want to lose the tax losses amongst other things so they (the DIP) can propose a motion like the General Motors one to “get the equity shareholders out” and allow everyone to move forward - this has to go back to themselves (the DIP) and the Creditors Committee who can raise objections if they want. That’s also why you will have seen motions for Conflicts of Interest Advisors to be appointed

If I have got this wrong (which I haven’t) what General Motors did and much of the advisory work so far of Slaughter and May, Investec, FCA and Takeover Panel would be wrong as it’s based on these fundamental principles and the difference between “Cine the Plc Company known to shareholders” and “Cine the Company under the control of DIP”

Patience, thought you filtered me yesterday, feel free, but then found ur back. Poop pants not for you today then?