Member Info for Hexam

Stanley - the hearing was due to start on the 12th but as it stands will not take place as it automatically stayed by the Chapter 11. Cineplex have challenged this so if the judge sides with them it will still go ahead. Cineworld in turn have objected to this challenge so they want it postponed - which is what it will be unless CP can convince the judge otherwise.

Hi Jeff,

Thanks for posting that data on shareholdings. It's very interesting although a little out of date (Polaris have now exited). It also doesn't show actual ownership though as the HL figure for example represents the sum of PI investments via the HL platform rather than what HL have invested themselves.

The same is true for the HSBC number though I think this is related to the Global City Holdings/Theatres holding rather than PIs.

In any event neither HL nor HSBC feature in the major shareholders listed in the latest annual report as they don't have voting rights for these shares.

Cheers PI - we got there in the end :)

Wolf - I have been looking through notifications of major holdings and have found no mention of HSBC. I'll keep looking but I'm beginning to think the 20% holdings for Global City, HSBC and maybe 'lsrael Theatres' are all one and the same?

Poor - For the avoidance of doubt what I am saying is that I don't know whether HSBC are significant lenders (or lenders at all) to CINE. All I am saying is that some in particular have claimed that HSBC is a significant lender and even the 'main lender' but have not provided any evidence. So I am simply claiming that it is unproven - not that it isn't true. Big difference.

As to the lenders they include Credit Suisse, Invesco, Blackstone, Eaton Vance plus 20 others listed by CINE as comprising the ad hoc loan group which (I think) make up 52% of loans. Maybe HSBC are in the other 48%?

But if it's a nominee account as Wolf says then they are not the (beneficial) owner of the shares.

Besides my question has been about whether HSBC have loaned any significant money to CINE and hence have any influence on the Chapter 11 process as has often been claimed here as fact. May be true but still no evidence that I've seen on that. Even if they do 'own' shares (which I doubt) then they are just at the bottom of the pile along with all us other shareholders.

What's your point PI?

I believe the default with Chapter 11 is indeed that any litigation is stayed automatically but it can be challenged and this is what Cineplex are doing.

Not surprised CINE are fighting this as the last thing they need whilst trying to negotiate through a Chapter 11 is such an important court case using up both time and costs.

You're right though - some on this board have assumed the appeal is still going ahead (and it may well do if CP get their way) but the court docs show clearly that this is not the current position.

Hi AllKap,

It was $1,515.2m split:

Box Office: $833.6
Concession: $480.8m
Other: $200.8m

Jeff, I can't open it either but found the same story elsewhere. It doesn't relate to loans to CINE but to Global City Theatres (basically Mooky and Israel). I don't know if HSBC have lent any money to CINE itself but the insistence that they have some kind of veto on the current negotiations as 'main lender' is I believe nonsense.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-cineworld-grp-stake-idUSKBN20W0VI

Cheers Bonkers. It's just a shame this board has descended into such entrenched positions between the parasitic bashers of CINE and the fantasy spinning gamblers that have all turned up with the company in its current predicament.

Hopefully some sensible debate can still break through at times :)

For the record I think Docket 412 that I posted on this morning is encouraging. It points to there being much less of an immediate threat from the court case and that they are working hard on the reorganisation to save the company - including what will hopefully be a significant reduction in rent.

But some people will read what they want to read and make up what they want to make up.

This docket is interesting as it confirms that unless Cineplex get their way the deliberations due for Oct 12 and 13 on the appeal will be postponed and it gives the first hints (that I've seen) about the meeting with lenders on Sep 19th. It is summed up in these passages:

"Just two days into these chapter 11 cases (and approximately eighteen hours after the conclusion of the Debtors’ first day hearing), Cineplex filed its Emergency Stay Motion seeking (on one week’s notice) to allow litigation regarding a long-dead merger agreement to continue uninterrupted. Cineplex’s motion is premature. Granting relief from the automatic stay in these earliest days of the cases—when the Debtors are focused on making the critical 'smooth landing' into chapter 11 and developing the terms for a comprehensive restructuring that will ensure the survival of the businesses"

"there is a judgment against Cineworld, both Cineworld and Cineplex have appealed that judgment to the intermediate Court of Appeal for Ontario, and 'on the agreement of counsel' oral argument for that appeal is presently scheduled on October 12 and 13 and would need to be adjourned and potentially rescheduled if the stay remains in place"

"Indeed, on September 19, the Debtors’ management met with prepetition lenders, with the aim of filing a plan of reorganization by October 31. The Debtors’ management will need to stay focused on building a business and real estate plan to allow that to happen."

So basically the Chapter 11 does mean that the litigation will be paused, but Cineplex are trying to make sure it still goes ahead (Docket 218) and the aim is to submit a reorganisation plan by the end of October.

There is more useful detail in the docket (including mention of "developing and implementing a lease-rationalization plan for its theaters in the United States (which will involve negotiation of multiple lease modifications)".

So well worth a read I think for anybody interested in facts to help them decide on their investment choices. For those who think it is all waffle or are more interested in just making up stuff (like HSBC is the main lender) it is probably better to stay clear.

They are losing $2-$3m per month currently on a cash basis assuming they sell all the BTC they mine AND BTC prices stay the same AND costs stay the same - but hopefully electricity costs will fall.

We know how much BTC they had at the end of last month (854 excluding the equivalents in argo labs). So about $16m. This is not much more though than they need to hold to cover the remainder of the Galaxy Loan (at least $10m including margin).

We don't know how much cash they have though. They had around $11m at mid year but doubt this is any higher now and of course they would not want to get too close to zero.

So things do look tight but assuming the costs are coming down then they should be able to limp along for more than 5 months. If not, then 5 months may be about right - and possibly even a stretch.

The more pressing issue is how are they going to pay for the 0.9 EH of intel rigs as they said previously that they were short by $25m-$35m and they certainly haven't got that kind of money. They hinted strongly at a loan so would expect them to issue an RNS quite soon for this (and maybe a bit extra to give them some more breathing space). If they don't, or can't, then would expect them to delay the 0.9 EH (if possible) unless they can raise cash by some other means.

The one thing they can't afford to see is a further, significant fall in BTC especially as it has already fallen from August levels and difficulty has increased by 10% or so this month.

AB - Just to be clear I wasn't having a dig at you. It sounds like you've got a plan based on certain things happening or not happening. You are not just blindly believing in ARB anymore, even if some did reach that point a bit sooner. It may be a great plan from here, who knows? But the key thing is you are taking in new information and re-evaluating. You may be right or wrong but at least you haven't stuck your fingers in your ears or your head in the sand. Good luck.

At least some people learn from their mistakes.

What? September is on track to be the worst month so far this year and these slow months are part of the reason CINE is in this mess. Things will pick up considerably by the of the year (Avatar 2, Black Panther etc.) and 2023 is looking good but for now it's all about the debt restructuring (and the court case).

Actually I’m thinking of introducing profit related pay - just trying to find out how ARB are arranging it with their mysterious hosting partner and then I’ll copy that.

Not until you reach 100 posts a day.

Actually I think FP has called most things correctly - but then again I suppose I would defend him as that's what good bosses do - stick up for the team :-)

“Can you tell me exactly what was wrong with my calculations? All I wrote was possible.”

Agreed, it was possible but not in my view likely. I said at the time of your various mining and profit projections that they were very much on the optimistic side as they relied on a lot going right and very little going wrong. Your individual assumptions were optimistic but put them all together and they sometimes became very unrealistic indeed. And rather than all come true I don’t think any of them have so far?

Personally I don’t think you are a ‘ramper’ but then again I could post valid scenarios showing ARB going bust within 6 months. If I kept doing this wouldn’t that make me a deramper?

I do like your posts (apart from when you and FP drag each other down) as they are often informative, you do provide reasonings to support your (optimistic) views and you are not blinded like some on here. But providing optimistic numbers based on optimistic assumptions can be compelling to some who want to believe in the moon. After all I’ve not seen them question your assumptions as you give the answer they want to see but when I’ve come up with things that aren’t quite as appealing I’m told off for making assumptions at all because I can’t possibly know the future!