Member Info for HNS_77

@BlueBuxton - Wishing you a speedy recovery - Here it is

It sounds more like a horror film it would show in one of its cinemas. But the fact is that in the real world Cineworld will have to raise “substantial liquidity” or look at selling off parts of its US business if its financial position becomes more perilous by losing its appeal against a damages award in a legal battle with Cineplex, according to a leading city analyst.

The embattled cinema chain agreed to buy Cineplex just before the pandemic but withdrew and the Ontario Superior Court of Justice awarded Cineplex damages of C$1.23 billion (£774 million), which Cineworld is now appealing against.

However, Ali Naqvi, an analyst at HSBC, believes that because Cineworld cannot afford to pay damages if it loses the appeal, the company will have to look at raising liquidity via either a listing of its American business, selling some of it or a substantial equity raise.

Reducing their 40p price target to 24p and sticking with a “hold” recommendation, Naqvi and his team also flagged that the company may breach covenants this year as they think Cineworld’s admission numbers are likely to come in lower than expected. However, they expect lenders might waive these as a result of an improving box office outlook.

The uncertainty around the future of the company prompted the shares, which have tumbled about 75 per cent over the past year, to fall a further 1p, or 4.2 per cent, to 21¼p

Thanks for sharing, there is nothing new here in terms of facts. This article is based entirely on the downgrade by a HSBC analyst Ali Naqvi

The analyst “believes Cineworld cannot afford to pay damages if it loses the appeal.”

Guess who else has said that publicly already? : Mooky the CEO of Cineworld so no surprises there

Who is this analyst - Ali Naqvi - according to tip ranks website has a 28% success rate and average return of -0.9% . According to their scale is rated 2 out of 5 stars

So he is usually wrong 72% of the time

If the details were in the public domain to see what the covenant sets out in that event and if it is a binary test or if it ratchets up depending on by what margin it is missed.

Otherwise it is just guesswork

With box office gaining momentum and clear improvements even if they have missed it by whatever margin seems reasonable to assume they can at least secure another waiver

They have provided information on what parameters they would definitely breach so perhaps establish that via the numbers first

Scenario modelled under the weighted base case.

Under this scenario the Group would achieve 50% of the admission levels modelled under the base case for two months, this represents admissions at 43% of 2019 levels during April and May of 2022. Under this scenario the Group would breach its net leverage covenant in June 2022,

@bonkers - I commend you for even having the botheration to respond

@Silver no doubt it is very frustrating for all involved

With this court case outcome it does have a feel of "YOLO" about it when it was meant to be a slow and steady recovery as opposed to gambling on a single outcome - I am sure most of us never intended on being in that position but sitting in losses having not sold out at the previous highs and in profit that is where many of us (including me) find ourselves. In the meantime I have been fortunate to bring my average down significantly to try and capitalise on the situation and sounds like you have too.

For those staying the course all we can do is take comfort in the rapidly improving box office situation - in the event the court case does not go our way there are plenty of mitigations that will hopefully soften the blow .

We are fingertips away from posting the first $1bn month after over 2 years - I’ll be damned if Mooky and co Risked throwing that away on this insignificant film

Imagine you turned up to watch Jurassic park with kiddies in tow and saw an angry crowd outside shouting “god is great” it’s hardly going to entice you in - well done mooky and co - can’t imagine anyone is going to not go and watch Thor love and thunder and all the other great films in protest of this decision

In the event It’s not like there are any narwhal tusks hanging up in your local Cine you can use as a makeshift weapon - the best I can think of is using one those shovels for the pick n mix

Tegop I don’t blame them - with all the other challenges certainly not worth risking it over movies that are actually going to make big box office like Jurassic and light year

My nearest is a vue but I’ll be going to Cine I wouldn’t want to be around a Cinema while that is playing - just takes one idiot …. Plenty of them and out there

Thanks for pointing that out - if you scroll to April 22nd it talks about the defendants ( the insurance companies) seeking a motion for judgement on the pleadings and those other documents dated May seem to correspond

Looks like that motion was passed hence the statement posted to dismiss the case

I could be wrong but that seems the most obvious conclusion given the statement posted by the judge

@tedzkat

The information I have are court filings available via PACER which is their court documents system - you have to register for it and it is a bit of a ball-ache but I bothered to do it because I was curious to find out more details

So the link you shared takes filings up to February but via PACER it takes it up to May 27th and I shared an extract of the document where the judges motion to dismiss the case was published in May. This is despite another document where Regal plead to set new arguments in support of the case - so my reading of that (and what I posted here) is that it is the end of line for this court case

I can't see the mention of the 2023 in that link or do you have another one?

No offence intended - as long as it remains a peaceful protest is entirely legal and fine with me if that’s what people want to spend their time doing - better that then letting air out of tyres vandalising private property in the name of climate action

I think you mean a tiny tiny minority of over sensitive zealots

Look on the bright side - with the coverage this film has now got I am sure Cine will do rather well in all the other cinemas branches - might generate some extra revenue at least

In fairness I don’t think they ever issued an RNS about this it was picked up via media reports - the court case was “Crown intermediate holdings llc vs insurers” as opposed to Cineworld so perhaps that meant it wasn’t for Cineworld to issue an RNS about it

Obviously hoped for a better outcome but best to know the truth !

Essentially all the cases including this one have been judged on the basis that the covid virus did not constitute “physical damage” to the building even if it meant they could not trade so business interruption didn’t count

INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................ 1
REGAL CANNOT OVERCOME BINDING AUTHORITY
STATING THAT THE PRESENCE OF COVID-19 CANNOT
CAUSE “DIRECT PHYSICAL LOSS OR DAMAGE” AS A
MATTER OF LAW .........................................................................................1
A. New York Law Bars Coverage .............................................................. 1
B. California Law Bars Coverage............................................................... 3
C. Regal’s Complaint Is Fatally Flawed And Cannot Be Corrected
To Plausibly Allege “Direct Physical Loss or Damage”.......................8
D. Insurers’ Position(s) In Other Cases Have Been Consistent ...............11
COVERAGE FOR COMMUNICABLE DISEASE REQUIRES A “COVERED LOSS” AND AN ORDER REQUIRING DECONTAMINATION................................................................................. 13
ALL OTHER COVERAGES WERE NEVER TRIGGERED DUE TO REGAL’S INABILITY TO SATISFY THE PRIMARY INSURING CLAUSE FOR “DIRECT PHYSICAL LOSS OR DAMAGE”....................13
THE CONTAMINATION, LOSS OF USE, AND IDLE PERIOD EXCLUSIONS APPLY TO REGAL’S CLAIM...........................................14
A STAY IS UNNECESSARY AND AMENDMENT IS FUTILE...............15 CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 15
III. IV.
V.
VI. VII.
-i-
REPLY ISO JOIN

What I just posted was part of a 30 page document filed on 20/05/22

This is from the official court documents - my understandable from this is no - the insurers lawyers got it dismissed

For these reasons, the Court concludes that Regal has not and cannot establish that it is entitled to coverage under the Policies provided by Insurers. In light of Regal’s allegations and the undisputed language of the Policies, the Court finds that leave to amend would be futile. Accordingly, the Court hereby GRANTS Insurers’ Joint Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and dismisses Regal’s Complaint in its entirety with prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
_______________________________
Hon. Stanley Blumenfeld, Jr. United States District Judge

I posted an update I found on this on the bb some time ago - the case was dismissed and didn’t go to trial once it was passed over to federal court

From recollection the judge dismissed it on the basis that many similar claims had already been rejected

Tried to go to your link in case I was mistaken but it’s a dead link for me so assuming the judgement I read still stands

People would be well advised to look at who is writing the articles that proport to make such majestic and far reaching predictions - just because it is published doesn’t make it fact - particularly when there is objective evidence (box office performance) that proves the wrongheaded conclusions

Journalists are paid to write stuff, this guy is across so many industries it’s amazing in a career that has spanned 5 years since he graduated from uni to give us the benefit of his unrivalled wisdom and prophetic announcements about cinema. I am sure if one could be bothered to look in the archive of his pieces for barrons you might find one hailing the future of streaming as the only viable form of entertainment

Imho Cinema doesn’t need “ saving”- it’s much more mundane then that - it’s just something people used to do, then stopped doing for a bit during covid and now (without the potential threat of death or serious illness) are starting to do it again as old habits return.