Member Info for HNS_77

Its going to be a mixture of things bearing down on the Sp

Risk off sentiment across investors due to wider economic situation and its effect on equity markets
Slower then forecast recovery due to the various reasons previously discussed
Material risk due to the loss of the court case and uncertainty around appeal outcome

Fortunately the fundamental business itself is recovering quickly so as the economic sentiment becomes sunnier, the forecast box office begins to catch up with all the great releases on the way and navigate the appeal we can all hope for a brighter time after these dark clouds move away

@All Kap - I can't see a way that would be possible given how the appeal process works. However you do wonder if the appeal was to fail and this goes for enforcement in UK courts if there is any political weight to bear on enforcing such a decision that is likely to enrich shareholders of a company and could potentially lead to loss of jobs for 1000s of workers here in the UK and US

@bb / Mountainous- I am probably overreaching here but if you read the Canada/U.K. foreign judgments enforcement treaty one of the grounds for dismissing a foreign ruling is where there is a concern around the trial process which I would assume could include how the judge was selected. If that was the case then it’s possible Mooky and co continue with the appeal and if unsuccessful could use this conflict to dismiss the ruling at enforcement stage.

@wellington no one is accusing Conway of being “bent”. Rather was this potential for conflict/ bias overlooked when a judge was being selected. There doesn’t have to be any malevolence as mountainous said could have been subconscious bias the point is that’s why judges often recuse themselves from cases that pose a potential conflict or may seen to be - it isn’t an admission of guilt.

We have posed the question to Cine lawyers if they were aware of Barbara’s family member having close personal and professional relationships over years with senior Cineplex leaders and in light of that was she appropriate person to preside over the case

I could be wrong but personally don’t see how it can be but it’s up to Cine and their lawyers to consider how they want to use this info in their strategy assuming it wasn’t known to them before.

@cape - best post I have read in a long while

Give me an overpriced ticket so can watch in peace then a bunch of idiots talking over the film any day

Regardless of the outcome it does give credence to the idea that’s been noted for a while that Judge Conway’s “novel” or “not traditional” judgement (that’s in the words of other lawyers commenting on the case ) seemed very one sided in its consideration and this new evidence gives rise to the potential that bias could have played a part

Either way it is very unlikely that the 3 appeal judges will have family members that are firm friends with Cineplex Board like Conway which is grounds for optimism as we get closer to the appeal that a more sensible result will come through

Thanks for the update, quick reply from Scott so hopefully it’s making its way up the chain quickly

Well done Bb good to hear that’s done and dusted now they should have it sitting in their respective inbox’s for Monday morning.

It’s a slim chance but worth trying nonetheless

Good work BB - so was that error message for Ashley only or did the others bounce back too?

Tegop - that is possible and I find it hard to believe with their resources they could have missed this - worth a punt to see what happens in case they did miss this

A conflict of interest if declared and if it was argued that it didn’t make a different can be considered acceptable and perhaps that was what happened but a family member having close ties to Cineplex board and execs seems very problematic to me

I won’t be too disappointed if we don’t get an immediate response. The evidence doesn’t lie and we are all using our common sense to see there is a strong conflict of interest here .

It may be that they decide to keep this in their back pocket for after the appeal particularly if they feel they have a strong chance to overturn the decision then face a retrial - either way I think being a fly on the wall when they are around the table discussing this next week would be fascinating

I’ve already sent to steep and d’souza - happy to keep it to Scott and just thought it would be good to cover a few more basis to be honest I don’t think it can hurt sending it to all of them but do what you feel comfortable

@BB I was thinking it would be a good idea to send the email to Israel as well as Scott. I am assuming his email will be the same format - my impression is if he picks it up there is a higher chance he will do something with it

@Andy

That is a classic straw man argument to position the evidence presented as trying to prove the judge was corruption and guilty of bias when that is clearly not what has been put forward . The assertion is that relationship introduces a conflict of interest and potential for bias. As an experienced lawyer you say you are should know the difference between the two assertions

Answer this question - If you were accused of a crime and had to defend yourself in court would you want the judge ruling on your case to be related to someone who is friends with your accuser? How confident would you be they would give you a fair hearing?

That is the position here based on what evidence has been uncovered - will wait to see if it is sufficient to be acted upon

Looks like this lack of disclosure is rather commonplace

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/oct/18/judge-bias-corrupts-court-cases

Judges in local, state and federal courts across the country routinely hide their connections to litigants and their lawyers. These links can be social – they may have been law school classmates or share common friends – political, financial or ideological. In some instances the two may have mutual investment interests. They might be in-laws. Occasionally they are literally in bed together. While it’s unavoidable that such relationships will occur, when they do create a perception of bias, a judge is duty-bound to at the very least disclose that information, and if it is creates an actual bias, allow a different judge to take over.

All too often, however, the conflicted jurist says nothing and proceeds to rule in favor of the connected party, while the loser goes off without realizing an undisclosed bias doomed her case.

@Strike thanks for the feedback! - I do like your idea about Cine putting out an interim RNS to signal an investigation into these allegations if they pick this up and are permitted to do so.

@buxton, many happy returns

Sounds like a good plan, yes wasn’t going to sign out for that very reason in case I end up not being able to post on my pc

Sounds like Scott is on the ball and once he gets the message from you hopefully it’s a short chain of command to get this in front of Mooky and the rest of the team .

I have re-read what I sent a few times I genuinely cannot see how this can be justified, but at the same time really surprised if this wasn’t known or declared before the trial went ahead

Either way we will have done our best to shine a light on this - to my mind it’s a clear breach and I would expect an RNS in a few weeks to say the judgement has been reversed - here’s hoping!

@BB I only provided a link to that one but I also saved each photo and attached to the email so left the links out of some but labeled the photos like evidence exhibits

This is the photo link of the gala leadership - David Mirvish and Phyllis Yaffe - I saved this photo and called it David M and Phyllis’s P and did the same for the Richard and Barbara and the photo of Barbara and Audrey both links below

https://www.patrickmcmullan.com/search/?q=CCAR%20Gala%20Leadership

https://www.patrickmcmullan.com/photo/3454687

Yes that’s the correct PDF again I saved and attached it

I called the email “Cineworld Vs Cineplex”

That’s odd I have been using it on chrome and works just fine

@Andy

This is very well trodden ground on this bb

The appeal statement provides clear rebuttals to the points you have made. Particularly around risk allocation of the pandemic that the Mae clause allocates risk to Cine as a condition of closing ie they couldn’t back out of closing the deal simply because a pandemic hit NOT that the business could be managed outside of the parameters of the whole agreement because a pandemic hit - that’s a difference in argument that both sets of lawyers have been arguing

Most sensible people on this board agree the breach can be argued both ways. Personally Im not that interested in one lawyers option or judge but I would love to have a straw poll of say 100 or 1000 lawyers or judges to get a better sense of how likely the majority would be to side with which argument you as there is never going to be one correct or incorrect interpretation.

Synergies is a whole other discussion…

From the appeal papers I posted last week Steep and his firm are listed as counsel and the new guy is co-counsel so looks like they are still leading the process.

Personally I don’t think they would want to bury this - to have the potential to get this judgement reversed would be good business for them - no one likes to hire lawyers that lose so I’m sure they would jump at the chance to put that right