Member Info for mountainous

Goodness me. People will really search high and low to avoid looking at the positives. We have had a 131% increase in box office performance as well as a positive quarter last year and now we have comparisons between CINE to Debenhams.

How does someone look at Debenhams and Cineworld and say ‘those are easily comparative with each other’? You could probably compare Cineworld with the grass in my back garden and that would be a more accurate comparison than Debenhams.

Mooky could reach into a popcorn machine and find £100bn in cash and some people would still say that CINE isn’t meeting their base case. Lighten up a bit.

Watch out, because if/when CINE gets a positive outcome from the litigation, we will still have people expressing dissatisfaction. Some people are just impossible to satisfy…

Yes, everyone is entitled to express their own opinion. I am also allowed to express my counter-opinion as well.

Hey ho, for all we know we could get an RNS tomorrow morning titled ‘Update on Cineworld v Cineplex Litigation’ stating that we have reached an out of court settlement :)

Might be wishful thinking at this point, but here’s to hoping!

Indeed she was @BlueBuxton, likelihood is that if what has been found here is of any significance it would be discussed at a board meeting, so I think it will filter through to her eventually :)

@BlueBuxton, the usual format appears to be [first name].[last name]@cineworld.co.uk

So for example, Scott.brooker@cineworld.co.uk
Ashley.steel@cineworld.co.uk
Nisan.cohen@cineworld.co.uk
Israel.greidinger@cineworld.co.uk
Mooky.greidinger@cineworld.co.uk

And so on and so forth, that’s my understanding

No problem, should be ok. Either way the information gets delivered :)

I would say just send to Scott and ensure you receive confirmation that he has forwarded it to Mooky.

As previously suggested, perhaps you could also send to Paul Steep, but not sure about how involved he is in the case this time. Might be in our best interests to keep it within the company circle and let it percolate through Scott and BoD in my view.

@BlueBuxton, I averaged down a very tiny bit last week with some residual free funds, nothing major.

CINE just sent me an email out of the blue saying they had added it to my card and I could redeem it on my next visit. I haven’t been to CINE in a few months, so perhaps they did that to entice me back in perhaps :)

Further to your claim of ‘no corruption’, we have established that there is a likelihood that connections between the judge and people who would have benefitted greatly from a skewed ruling did in fact exist. This should be investigated and investigated deeply, it is not supposed to be that your chances of true justice depend on which judge took your case, there is at least supposed to be some consensus on the result, which we have seen none of from people outside of Cineplex.

Every legal analysis we have seen agrees that this ruling was excessive. Based on the minor movement of Cineplex stock that day, it appears the market is also of the same opinion.

Good evening @BlueBuxton and happy birthday!

Perhaps CINE at £1 on Monday as a late birthday present :)

I watched Everything Everywhere All At Once today as CINE gave me a free snack and drink combo and my goodness that film was confusing. Won’t spoil it for anyone, but I guess the entire premise of the film was to be confusing considering the title XD

@Andy, good evening.

The idea that Cineplex is actually entitled to $1.23bn is a complete fantasy. This is why despite Cineplex being awarded an amount that was 2x the amount of their mcap, their sp barely made a move.

You say that the synergies calculation is fair, well congrats because you and Judge Barbara are the first amongst a global population of over 7 billion to think that. There has never been any such ruling with this kind of synergies calculation from my understanding.

You are indeed correct that the outbreak is not a valid reason to exit the agreement because it was excluded, but that doesn’t mean Cineplex gets a ‘Get Out of Jail Free’ card. If Cineplex acted perfectly well during the entire time, then yes, I would say that they were entitled to that amount CONDITIONAL UPON no wrongdoing at all from them. But that was not the case, we saw the Queensway acquisition which was a breach of the agreement in my opinion. Further, Cineplex failed to act in line with normal operations. This wasn’t small either, they were doing the precise opposite of everyone else. Therefore, if Cineplex is entitled to the whole $1.23bn sum, then that means CINE is also entitled to something as well. If Cineplex would like $1.23bn for these so-called ‘lost synergies’, then how about we get an award for the hundreds of millions of extra interest expense we incurred as a result of taking out extra debt to fund the acquisition? I also must say that because the money for the acquisition was ringfenced, this meant CINE needed to take out further cash in order to fund their own business, so the interest from that should also be added, hence I think it is in the hundreds of millions.

This is a black and white matter in my opinion, yes CINE may have not acted completely in line with the agreement, but neither did Cineplex. Both have committed wrongdoing, and consequently this should be nil-nil. At worst, CINE should pay the breakage fee in the agreement and everyone goes their own way.

@BlueBuxton, I believe HNS mentioned that including that article may muddy the waters as it may come across as someone who is just unhappy with their court result.

@HNS, you may also wish to copy in Scott Brooker (Company Secretary). He has a direct way of getting things to Mooky, so I think we can be sure that it will be directed to the right person.

Scott.brooker@cineworld.co.uk

Ashley Steel also was very receptive at the AGM, perhaps that could be an option too. Don’t know her email, but judging by the format seen previously it may be Ashley.steel@cineworld.co.uk

There is also Mooky.greidinger@cineworld.co.uk , no clue if it would actually reach him, perhaps he has his email set to only allow internal emails. But I think Scott is a good entry point for us.

Thank you @RS, @HNS has done the vast majority of the investigative work here.

@forest and @lpd, I think if she did claim conflict of interest, then any fair court with common sense would not allow her to rule on that case. So either she didn’t claim it (corruption) or she did claim it and the court decided to allow it to happen with vast conflict of interest present (also corruption).

All in my opinion, but looks like there is a big case to make of it either way.

Great stuff @HNS, thank you for that. This could be big potentially.

@Alex, precisely that as well. The entire thing looks extremely cosy, this could be big.

Either we forward this to Scott or we could also kick up a fuss about it in the media ‘UK’s largest cinema chain targeted by biased judge’ (as our media enjoys sensationalist headlines). That alone could push Cineplex/Cineworld or the court to take action if it goes into mainstream.

@HNS, huge well done to you for doing all of the digging to find this. In my opinion, CINE could have a very solid case for potential conflict of interest with all of that, there are at least 3 connections in there. We also now know that Barbara was indirectly connected up to the CEO through the connections.

And HNS, I would follow @lpd’s advice and screenshot if you can before it all goes ‘missing’…

@HNS, the date and location matches up to photographs of both of them, so there is no doubt that they both attended the same event.

@BlueBuxton, I think perhaps forward to Scott and then we can be sure it will reach Mooky. It is very clear they were both at the same event, this alone should raise a concern as to whether there was truly impartiality or not.

@BlueBuxton, it actually may not be a bad idea to compile all of this information together and send to CINE for scrutinisation from their legal team. What have we got to lose? There very well may be some sort of process if the defendant (CINE) believes that a conflict of interest exists?

@HNS, from what I remember, when there is a case in court and a jury is chosen, there is an effort to compose a jury that is as unbiased as possible.

There was the case of Martin Shkreli many years ago (pharma exec, securities fraud) and the court looked high and low to get a proper, unbiased jury, they actually found it difficult to do so because of how well known he was at the time.

Meanwhile, the so-called ‘Superior Court of Justice of Canada’ has allowed a judge with known connections to the plaintiffs to rule upon a high-profile case. Who decided that was a good idea? That is like sending Boris Johnson as a judge on a case about whether one of his cabinet members broke COVID laws or not, it is preposterous.

It is all appears very cosy indeed…

Good evening @BlueBuxton, hope you’re keeping well :)

And yup, the actual judgement document was one of the most frustration things to read, she doesn’t even try to hide it. For Cineworld’s side, she gives close to no benefit of the doubt, but when discussing Cineplex’s side there is a lot of ‘benefit of the doubt’ to dish out.

Fingers crossed the appeal judges see this and reduce the sum, otherwise I will lose a lot of faith in the Canadian justice system. To the best of my knowledge, not one person outside of Cineplex has expressed an opinion that Cineplex will win this appeal. From the commentary I have read (most thanks to HNS), the vast majority anticipate CINE has a good chance of winning, and this is coming from actual legal scholars who have read the judgement in full most likely.