Member Info for ElvisRocks

Nope, pull your big boy pants up Wolff …. or should I say “smarty pants, mr know it all .. I’m a banker, lawyer, auditor, accountant, analyst, broker, restructuring officer, hedge fund manager and every other occupation under the sun …” … aka narcissist

Oh Wolff, I really wish you didn’t have such naivety, it almost makes you bashful… of course not that angle on not providing for it (because it might have a negative impact on the company) all they had to do was find enough information to support the company’s position (and disclose it / what they had done) because they don’t know, just like everyone else, whether the Canadian judge opinion will stand. And as for your poor attempt at trying to argue accruing…

I’ve noticed that with you, when you are found short, you try to dismiss someone else’s view as sarcasm. That’s a number of times you’ve been caught with your trousers down and proven to be wrong, the other was Investec where you tried to dismiss there may in fact be another view.

With love from your Office Pencil Sharpener / Disgruntled University Student xx

directors/ auditors did not take seriously I meant (ie they did)

Wolffie, what u cannot argue is the directors or auditors take seriously the Cineplex judgement, it’s all over the accounts, front end back end and audit report and viability statement

What exactly were the auditors supposed to do (kidnap a future judge and hold him/her to ransom like might happen in Nigeria), they was nothing more they could do to come to an alternative judgement, if they did and allow a $1.5bn provision or qualify their report, it would probably have impacted the solvency and led to a run on the company, and we would have been at zero pence long ago

That’s why auditors underwrite worldwide capital markets, same on the audit report where we know the answer already all they have to do is “add a few words on chapter 11”. Meanwhile you have lawyers ramping the case and filling their boots (and the directors having to follow that advice due to their indemnification needs), job sorted.

That’s why I am disagreeing with you

Ok fair reply Wolffie, I’ll do another (nice) reply later so we can continue the (nice) debate …. we are playing nicely in the sandpit as the golfer or (infant) mother would say …

Worry not Wolff, I’m totally with you on this form of management accounts and special case requirements, I’m just trying to correct you on a bit of guns-ho accounting …

As it is this type of gung-ho approach which would make you easy to spot in a professional environment situation, you would simply be “spat out” for example on your view of accounting for the cineplex judgement or goodwill (within a going concern environment) and even this $1bn, it would get at least a mention …

… or heaven forbid if the corporate lawyers had to stand in and advise on it and overruling IFRS (or the strength of the caveat). Oh hang on, they can charge $10k per hour for that …

Yes agree with your meat and two veg (sort of) but wouldn’t in the case of this $1bn amount, it’s sufficiently material and important to do a double take on before going debit / credit …

So Wolffie and your auditing hat would you account for or not account for (say)

Massive tobacco companies threats of wipeout liability for smoking lawsuits
Companies like Glencore who and massive court cases they faced for corruption
Environmental liabilities of the major oil company if they can’t measure them

Just interested to know as a disgruntled university student (I’ll maybe add an extra in) and “you’re the man” on this stuff … banker, accountant, lawyer, auditor and everything else it would seem …

Hexam, you may well be correct, just haven’t had time to run the numbers through my bean counter calculator. If it says “may not be fully in line with IFRS” then I would expect Cine to take full advantage of this caveat (if you like as no one else is relying on these statements bar the courts and bankers) unlike in a fully audited and fully in line with IFRS full year accounts where there is a wider group of people relying on these. That’s why you have an audit report, we don’t have one here. So you are probably correct, in short, it has been accounted for on that basis.

Wolff, I would disagree with you on the 31 October item, the statements say they are prepared under IFRS (and we know are not audited). I don’t not know what IFRS says about accounting for something like this at 31 October or was it in the month of November. You cannot simply say “accrue” for it if it hadn’t happened until 3 November just like you can’t say you should “provide” for the CinePlex judgement because it is the “prudent” thing to do.

You maybe correct on the $1bn being accounted for in another way, if you can prove it so to speak, that’s why I asked what happened to balance sheet values when the $1bn was agreed. Interest charges may be one other way to prove it.

debit … credit … Wolffie….

As weird as it sounds Cine do have $356 million in the bank accounts cwhich suggests to me they have accounted for the first part of the DIP($900 million odd) of the DIPs amounts and need this to their working capital needs. The $1bn accounting may come through in November

Wolff, I am not close enough to IFRS (substance over form principles), what IFRS says in terms of “accruing or not accruing” the whole series of transactions, profit and loss and balance sheet, at 31 October v 3 November.

Possibly the interest charge is very high, didn’t they agree some penal high interest rate as part of getting DIP agreed (which would suggest they have “booked” the transaction at 31 October)

… see Wolff even the office pencil sharpener / disgruntled uni student can say things nicely …

Looks like Wolff is back in the game, and (possibly) his accountant skills are not necessarily spot on re accruing interest as they have to prepare these monthly statements in terms of IFRS but not audited. I would “doubt” what the judge agreed on 31 October was taken into effect as his order was only 3 November.

Hexam looks like your $6bn loan figure you can get back to and I would imagine $4bn of leases still stands as does $4bn of goodwill. Finance costs “only” totalled $899m for the whole year last year so something looks “out”

Assuming the judge’s 3 November order did NOT go through the accounts at 31 October, how would this change the balance sheet and profit and loss account in November?

Hi Hexam, I saw those too, and looks like you have added the three submissions together, I assume the consolidated loans figure you quote is after deducting the cash and also after accounting for what the judge said should happen on the DIP stuff (possibly not as these numbers are at 31 October) and the judges order was effective on 3 November?

The interest bill I also thought was high, $134m for one month in the UK? (all this is what is being renegotiated).

Wolff, give this your best shot, being the knowledgeable accountant/auditor (that you claim to have skills in)

… WolfofWarks … the “Grand-Daddy” of them all, the “font of all knowledge”, “no other view permissible” …

Wolffie, I’m still waiting for an answer of the LLG meeting that is happening today (I’ll put my pencil sharpener down for 24 hours) …

Hello Wolff, as a disgruntled university student, I’m currently doing a PhD on the subject of “history of retail bankruptcies in an international environment, pre and post covid”

My first chapter is “Regression Analysis using stochastic modelling” (I have downloaded 5 years share price data to assist”

My second chapter is “the role of lawyers in an RNS Statement”

My third chapter will be “lawyers bills within the context of a C11 bankruptcy - do they help or mislead?”

I thought you would be well placed to comment, what other chapters would you include in what is sure to be a best seller? I’ll be sure to have my pencil sharpened ready to write down carefully your input

Good to see ur confusing everyone Wolff, the Office Pencil Sharpener is still waiting for an answer on LLG.

Ok Wolff, give this your best shot, tomorrow’s court meeting and what is likely to happen afterwards (LLG aka the Ad Hoc Lenders)

https://cases.ra.kroll.com/cineworld/Home-DownloadPDF?id1=MjMxNzUxNw==&id2=-1

From the Office Pencil Sharpener / Disgruntled Uni Student

Wolff, ur a quack. If you believe financial journalists run the show, and they would withstand the scrutiny of a high court judge or forensic examination good luck to you. But anyway, as a corporate lawyer you believe the legal bill is a load of tosh, so best you pop along to the judge in Texas and say perjury is being committed

By the way are you a he/she or identify as as him/her as wellington says? I foolishly believed you may have something between your ears intellect wise but realise you are just a “voyeur”

“in the case of wirecard, they were spot on” - did you examine the forensic reports rather than what you chose to read or hear? Do you believe everything you read in the press without challenging it (on occasion).