Member Info for HNS_77

To give some scale cases per 100,000 population across the U.K. is between 400-1000 cases in a majority of areas across the U.K. based on bbc stats

In the US here is the current per 100k across Regals largest territory’s that make up majority of cinemas courtesy of the NY Times data (weekly 7 day cases per 100k)

California - 11
New York 32
Georgia 8
Texas 11
Florida 6
Washington DC -10
North Carolina 16
Colorado 38
Virginia 16

My takeaway from this is - even if there is a new variant spike it is starting from a low base of infection in the states that matter to CINE ,

this gives time to understand if it even a real threat at all and commitment to mandatory vaccination in the US from Jan 22 onwards plus time to get new vaccine formulation circulated should dampen the doom scenario for Cine around any material interruption to trading

More like it is an elaborate double bluff open a position so investors think exactly that and sell off thus achieving the goal

It’s good to be cautious even if the countries affected by the new variant only have 20-25% of population fully vaccinated and no boosters - no surprise it is spreading so quickly

This paper provides some stats on time to judgement in Ontario courts for civil , non jury , non family trials and has a median average of 67 days to Mean average of 98 days. That would see us into early/ mid January at the earliest or mid February at the latest

Perhaps that’s where Mr Jacob is getting his “several month’s” assumption from on advice lawyers - as I posted previously from papers on both AB Stable and Firestone was between 4-6 weeks which is where speculation of a quicker decision in December looked possible

In short no-one has a clue but seems highly unlikely to go longer then February on the numbers above and should be considerably shorter if the judge relies on referencing either of the previous Covid related judgements in favour of whatever decision she is looking to make

https://www.canlii.org/en/commentary/doc/2021CanLIIDocs2254

Studios are not throwing darts at a dart board - Hollywood is a well oiled machine designed to churn out product to generate repeat revenues.

Big money making tent pole films (Bond or others) will continue to be released every year and so this October result is not a one off but hopefully a clear signal of a return to business as usual

It's actually 604%

From the analysis commentary

Below Fair Value: CINE (£0.66) is trading below our estimate of fair value (£3.98)

Significantly Below Fair Value: CINE is trading below fair value by more than 20%.

@Small trader - I subscribe to Simply Wall Street - the only figure they show is Cine being undervalued by 83.5% ie current fair value is £3.98. I think the 20% you are referring to is the scale they use eg Green is 0-20% under values Amber is “about right” and red is 0-20% overvalued- they put £3.98 in the “about right” for a valuation today based taking account projected future cash flows , debt commitments etc

Some of the straw man arguments I read on here do make me chuckle. As if Cine operates in a vacuum where every other company trading on the lse is a risk free bet from impacts of inflation or any number of internal and external risks somehow Cine is the only business uniquely exposed to these risks

Are some business more or less risky then Cineworld - of course

Environment changes and the risk profile changes - those who gambled on the outcome are rewarded so the risk reward ratio changes and lo and behold the share price responds accordingly

We all know what the known risks are so can take a view which way the pendulum will swing -so far things have gone (barring delta) pretty much to plan

Post court case is the next big risk to be addressed then let’s see where we end up

Happy to be corrected on this but I can’t think of any case law cited by goodmans where a public company has been awarded damages to the value of of the transcation value or even examples anywhere close.

Contrast this with CW lawyers who cited numerous cases where even when judged in the favour of the complainant ie CP nominal or even 0 damages have been awarded due to circumstances of the case.

@JG68 well said - if the stats proved correct between vaccination, boosters and the Pfizer and Merck treatments virtually no one (in the western world at least) should die from a covid infection in 2022

https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2020/2020onsc7397/2020onsc7397.html

Thanks LPD I agree I’m sure it will be a comprehensive and fulsome document. This link to Fairstone decision has a date of 15th September 2020 as the last date of hearing evidence and that decision was produced on 12 December 2020. I am assuming that was not the date of submission which may have been later as but more like the dates the evidence was heard.

Assuming that is correct looks like a 4-8 week range is a fair shout in terms of duration

AB Stable which was one of the cases took a month from submission to judgement from an online reference I have seen - not saying this will follow the same timeframe but would think a pre Xmas finish would be preferred and presumably she has other cases to focus on so cannot go on indefinitely

Goodmans have an obligation to present their clients case to the very end and that is what they are doing. The fact it requires Mr Mark to blather on ad nauseum [his words] is a cross they have to bear.

CW have done enough I’m interested to hear there response too but for this to be something material you would have to accept that ICA was a CW breach which is one of many weak points in the CP case

Link from Neesons just dropped in case they don't update the website

https://youtu.be/g31Ys3XHkp0

That bit got convoluted but as you say Mr De Souza managed to pull it back eventually. She is clearly uncomfortable going anywhere near the no prejudice discussion and I don’t think we need to overcook things so I am glad he backed away from that and moved on.

I can’t say we needed to dwell on it given the evidence in court that Mooky had stated he had made it know he didn’t want additional debt on his shoulders and about relations with landlords added to that the fact that in CPs own board minutes it states as early as April they were aware that Cineworld felt they had deviated from the ordinary course so didn’t really need to put so much emphasis on it.

Just to add - The case law provided by Mr Steep was very powerful and in my opinion obliterated the CP case as to why the ordinary course covenant simply cannot be linked to the effects of the pandemic both from the reading of this agreement or from a logical standpoint of avoiding moral hazard - I am not a legal scholar but have experience drafting commercial contracts and the words on page the DO matter - that’s why they are there and is why Mr Steep said that CP lawyers never referenced the expressed terms of the agreement in their argument

Final day tomorrow and looking forward to CW taking apart the damages claims as they have done to the rest of the CP case

@ Blue Buxton thanks and appreciate the feedback. I have emailed Neesons if/ when I get a reply I will post the link here and have reminded them to update the court website like last time :)

Today session ended better then it may have seemed if anyone caught a passing glimpse of it - main points landed from what I saw

Mr Steep continued to strengthen the argument that there were significant deviation from the ordinary course and CPs violation of the terms of agreement in not seeking consent on a number of material matters such as Rio can

There was no obligation in terms demonstrating of Good Faith on CW to highlight CP deviation from ordinary course yet there were many examples in evidence of where it did raise concerns

There was no ulterior motive being cooked up by CW to exit the CP transaction in order to secure its RCF financing and that it was clear CP deal financing was secure throughout

That CW officers were entitled to be skeptical about CPs chances of meeting it’s obligations but that doesn’t have any bearing on CPs obligation to perform in accordance with the agreement

Very pleased with the strength of argument that has led by referencing the actual agreement at all times as opposed to creating stories and fantastical narratives that sound good in isolation but fall apart when put next to boring reality of the actual obligations set out in the agreement