Ben Richardson, CEO at SulNOx, confident they can cost-effectively decarbonise commercial shipping. Watch the video here.
I would just question your own knowledge here. A fundamental aspect of commercial contracts (Among Other things) is the fact that if you write something into a contract I.e a specified FM event, it does not mandate that it will be interpreted in the same manner. Broad and “merely unforeseeable events” canny be simply dictated as a FM event. They must be so far out of the contemplation of both parties that neither could have even remotely foreseen the consequences. On this logic, paolo, I would question your ability on drafting/ advising on FM clauses.
Just for clarification, things in the past that have constituted force majeure have been things like contracts for an English company to supply steel to a German company post 1939. On the outbreak of war, it would have been an act of treason to continue the contract. Thus, it can be seen the hight threshold for an “act of god” exemption.
Investroid, that is the point I am making. In my opinion, there is no way that this will fall under a force majeure event unfortunately. As I have said before, a FM event must make the deal impossible. While it may make the deal onerous for Cineworld, coronavirus does not make it impossible so the FM argument is weak.
Alternatively, Cineworld would not be foolish enough to claim that Cineplex have breached the debt level if they had not, in fact, done so. So yes, the decision would hinge upon whether the debt threshold had been exceeded. Cineworld would, no doubt, have good reason to believe this and therefore termination would not be in breach.
Investroid, the termination of the contract was not on the grounds of an act of god/COVID 19. The same article that you have cherry picked this quote from cites the official reason as Cineplex having taken on over 100 million more in debt than Cineworld were prepared to accept (think the agreement was 625m net debt but cineplex currently have 750m). Termination on this ground should pose very few problems for Cineworld.
All hail master Nightyard and his crystal ball.... not. Lucky guess. What about today? Next week?
Very interesting opinion you have there. Am I correct in thinking that your “data” is based on the debt the company has? If so, the majority of the FTSE 250 would, for sure, be in the negative figures right now. CLOWN.
Jstar, completely understand what you say. But it would be wrong to assume that the landlord has no power in these situations. At the the day, regardless of bargaining power Next and particularly Primark (due to a lack of an online shop) would need floorspace to sell their goods. Saying that they would be able to dictate the therms of the contract would be a misunderstanding.
It is not a simple process to shift a store to a new real estate provider and on this basis, there is considerable incentive for larger companies to sign the contract and continue trading. I imagine primary in particular would be welcoming to the post-lockdown trade.
While I acknowledge that rent reductions are a given (there is likely a provision in the contract that allows for a regular rent review, especially in times of economic crises), this would be in the interests of both parties. The last think NRR would want is a major client to become insolvent. The likely scenario would be a future review at 12 months time and providing the virus had subsided, rent may be increased again. For this reason, this is likely to be a long term investment for me.
Have a good evening.
With these large scale commercial leases, a well drafted contract would include a guarantor clause. Essentially for NRR to miss out on rent payments, 2 entity’s must become insolvent. Even if this was the case, NRR May be a charge holder and thus, be quite far up the “insolvency ladder”.
Hi pan, yeah definitely think they are moving in the right direction. Defending the recent judicial review case will definitely be rewarding in the future (swapping the 2 remaining coal burners into gas powered towers). IMO can see this rising significantly in the future. Also, curious as to what you mean by rationalise, pan? Cine
Potential industrial action- nothing new here. Certainly not a reason to “get out now”. What is your problem with this stock? Do some research before posting to avoid looking foolish.
Pasa- idiot. If you knew anything about Drax, you would know that they are moving to greener/sustainable energy. “Get our while you can”!!?. You’re basing you reckless decision on a news article? Do some research first!
Hi PMD,
There is no obligation for any company to pay a specified dividend. Cineworld have averaged a yearly dividend of around 15p per share. As dividends are usually paid from the profits a company makes, I would not hold your breath for a large payment from CINE this year (though it is not off the cards). You do not have to hold the shares for a specified time or a specific amount, as long as you have held the shares before the “ex-dividend date” (the date that a dividend is announced) you will receive payment on the payment date. If you were looking to diversify a little bit and are interested in dividends, look at the big oil companies (BP and RDSB usually pay well). Additionally tobacco companies also have been historically sound for dividends (BATS and IMB). Good luck!
Fair point and it definitely follows that it has potential to grow the share price. There seems to be a common misconception that bitcoin is somehow “illegitimate” or “uncertain”, yet the very process used to mine the currency gives it its legitimacy. The sooner people buy into the idea, the bigger the growth potential.
It’s an interesting investment for sure, but no doubt a risk. Wouldn’t be throwing the kitchen sink at if anytime soon but may be worth a small amount.
Personally would rather see a negative response to the dividends question. As a relatively small business I would much rather them reinvest in growth. On that note, I would be interested to know what are the plans (if any) for expansion. I.e, do they plan to bring anyone new onboard or purchase more assets given the extremely low debt to asset ratio of around 16%. Any thoughts on using long term debt to finance future growth? Given the current interest rates, it would appear to be a missed opportunity if not.
R rating is little more than a guess. I wouldn’t take it too literally. GL
Initial opinion is that this is worth a risk. The share issue seemed to make sense and the steps taken to preserve liquidity are prudent. The fact that they own one of the smaller and upcoming airports is a positive- they have pointed out that the nature of Southend Airport lends itself to new social distancing when the boarders open. Additionally, predominantly serving the low cost airlines (EZY among others) could mean they come out of the pandemic stronger than other airports.
However, a new share issue is usually not good news for the company. The risk here is twofold, with 2 key questions;
1. Are management competent enough to effectively use the new funds to preserve the business over the next few months?
2. Will boarder reopen in time for the peak holiday season (mid July/ end of August)? And if so, are customers happy to go abroad given the circumstances of the pandemic and potential social distancing measures abroad?
The second question may soon be answered with an announcement on the proposed airbridges forthcoming.
This does have a lot of potential and at 48p seems a really good price.
All of this is in my own opinion and you should do your own research before investing.
Positive day today. Curious as to people’s target for this? Personally thinking of selling half at around 105 and holding onto the rest until the end of the year. Anyone else?
Nightyard, sorry , there is no chance it will be classed as a force majeure. Disruptions, however onerous they are, will not be grounds for arguing a force majeure event. Even if the company faced insolvency as a result- FM would not apply unfortunately.
Ahhh, good observation.
He is a clown.