Member Info for ElvisRocks

Wasn’t in the 200 page document, I belatedly picked DIP and Ad Hoc Loan Group up from Point 9 of this court document yesterday where it indicates the former negotiate with the latter. This doc yesterday also put back anything likely to happen by another 90 days until April 23 to allow more time, which I take as a good thing.

Now to wait until we can find out which banks are part of DIP.

Wolffie, how did you get on with speakin* to judge Isgur today, did he like you4 smarty pants, did u look a real Bobby Dazzler in them for him?

One for Clever Cloggs Wolff this one, if only we had all seen this on 7 October when Moodys were positive about the DIP outcome due on 31 October, we would all have put our money on red

Clever Clogs Wolffie, I guess you think Moodys are a load of tosh as well as they don’t make one way negative announcements like you like to quote on how desperado Cineworld future is. Are Moodys just as much as tosh as Slaughter and May?

https://www.moodys.com/research/Moodys-assigns-a-B1-rating-to-Cineworlds-DIP-facility--PR_470083

U were spot on Hexam, the $8.8bn ties straight into the financials note 19, (pdf page 144), not being an accountant that wolff thinks I’m not, surprised I found this so easily. So this makes about $5bn of loans, $4bn of lease liability). So now I am really puzzled about the make up of Ad Hoc loans and DIP and it is DIP who are negotiating with Ad Hoc. No doubt Wolff will tell us tomorrow, as he knows EVERYTHING, more than the Company or the Court Process it seems

Hexam, you now with me Investec rather than Invesco doing something with the Takeover Panel per Slaughter and May legal notes …

Wolff, still waiting for you to prove Investec are part of DIP ….

https://www.marketscreener.com/quote/stock/CINEWORLD-GROUP-PLC-9590220/company/

HL Nominees 12.9% (I thought I had seen 20% somewhere) but still high. Can’t remember who it was last week arguing HSBC were a lender, I think it was Wolffie, here it says they are a 20% shareholder….

Wolff, gives us your midus touch again and shows us where Investec are one of the 31 DIP lenders, everything you tell us is bang on the money (like free borrowing at 0.003% for anyone who wants to borrows shares) you won’t be wrong on this one. Also, what’s your inside knowledge you know there is no othe4 shareholder that Mooky could team up with, do you have specially planted voice recorders attached to his tie pins or stuffed in his pillows for “pillow talk”

I think you are misleading people Wolff, at your 1.24% PER ANNUM you quote, on a simple interest calculation to convert to daily interest (1.24% / 365) = 0.003% (that’s 3 Thousands of 1% equivalent), why would any short lender want to lend their share for such pathetic rates of interest?

Yes ianharding, that’s correct, get confused with different Cine words, … Cineworld, Cineplex, Cinemedia. NCM is a 1c stock according to its Nasdaq price today.

What you think about the other point, C11 Plan or Sale Plan, the date to file one or the other was yesterday, and if it was the former, surely it would have to go public on the Kroll website yesterday?

$2bn of money at stake per the original order so must be something important…

https://cases.ra.kroll.com/cineworld/Home-DownloadPDF?id1=MjI4NDg5Mg==&id2=-1

Anyone any idea what this is all about filed by the Judge today in Texas

https://cases.ra.kroll.com/cineworld/Home-DownloadPDF?id1=MjMxNTU3OQ==&id2=-1

Hello lmulhare, how does this work, so there are 2.8k shares you can borrow, sell short at 4.59p on 21 Nov as the example, but it will cost you 49% borrowing fee (over what time period is the 49%)?

Reppyrr, not UT. I use ADVFN Level 2 and these, as with all other companies, have trades going through after UT

Just a Q if anyone can answer it, often see share buys and sells after market close one going through today buy 200000 shares at 4.8513 at 16.50 hours

Why would someone pay that given close was much cheaper and how do they do that trade, between whom?

Husrart the only problem with your suggestion is Cine are planning to delist Cine in the next few weeks so there won’t be a share to trade …. go read some of my posts from the weekend where I identified this from!

Accosting the interims (the only place I could see it), today 21 November is the date Cine have to either file their sale plan or C11 plan.

… back to the 200 page PDF of lawyer costs, 13 October Page 107 of one of their £1000 per hour partners “attending call re … (Takeover) Panel and FCA submissions” something happening re equity interests soon ..

Or put another way I went back to the 31/10 judges order that released $1bn that caused the share price to go from 3p to 7p and back down again, so what u probably saw in some sloppy journalist headline grab, I doubt any journalist has got any hope of understanding the judges order and which is partly what the boring lawyers, takeover panel and FCA will be trying to work through

Goodluck if you can understand and give us the journalist steer…

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

Wolff, ur seem that you are from that eco system of “analysts, hedge funds, brokers, journalists and quasi bankers” (many of whom do not require a formal qualification) I’m more from the “lawyer, accountant, regulator community” - the two groups do not make easy bedfellows

Journalists maybe “broke” the story to the wider world on wirecard so it makes me wonder that you prefer the “scandal story” - Cineworld is a story where a lot has gone against it in last few years, shorted to death by finance firms, but where 2+2 does not equal 4 or 5, ie that is why many people are trying to rescue it.

Good find Tegop in that article “could still sell if a transaction exists” (this is guy is from Cine worlds restructure advisors so is in the know) and supports what all those comments in the 200 Page PDF bang on about ….

Wolff, constructive feedback (genuinely), have u ever been to a FT briefing or able to imagine how they go about things - they often send people so clueless in the subject matter they have to be “educated” all they are looking for is a headline grab. Naive to suggest otherwise

Wolff, didn’t see ur post of earlier, so sorry I got frustrated in last 2 or 3 posts (genuinely) let’s have a redraw and start again, playing nicely in the sandpit

My view is that Uber risk aversion is in lawyer DNA whilst they are active doing or trying to do the opposite, your position is zero pence wipeout is a possibility, or even likely.

Let’s restart the debate off again on that notion.