Member Info for mountainous

@Barbershop, yes Cineplex made a counter-appeal to our appeal. From what I remember, it was basically saying that in the event that Barbara is overruled and Cineplex is entitled to nothing, then Cineplex should still receive some damages. It’s pathetic, they got off extremely lucky this time and they it doesn’t even appear that they have any substance to their appeal.

All in my opinion.

Same here @FunInvestor, either way I think by EOY it’s going to be here :)

Absolutely @BlueBuxton.

Just thinking now, with the court case set in stone for October 12th and 13th, do you think we might get a live stream again and could we see Mr Mark make a return?

@BlueBuxton, I do the same sometimes! Too much is given away in the trailers these days!

Personally, I’m pumped. The first time around, the court hearings were all finished by early November and we got the judgement by mid December, so about 45 days thereabouts from memory.

With the court hearings finishing mid October this time, we should get the judgement by end of year if it follows the same schedule. I am already resigned to the fact that I am down 60%, so this is all or nothing at this point. If we win, then huge family pack of biscuits for us all, I expect 60p instant upon open, and if box office performs decently then we could very well see 100p by Christmas. If we lose, then c’est la vie. I pray that we don’t lose this appeal, but if we do then I will be looking closely at Mooky’s mood and what he says.

All out of our hands now. If you decide to hold until the release of the appeal result, then it’s pure lottery. One thing for sure in my opinion is that the price movement will be extreme regardless of the result, so take your pick, sit back, relax and let’s see what happens. I’m not going anywhere at all, Mooky and the directors I spoke to on Thursday gave me tremendous confidence.

All in my opinion, I’m excited now that are seeing progress!

Great to hear a concrete date, but if the first time around is anything to go by then it is very well possible that we may receive the appeal result by the end of the year, for good or for worst…

I must say from the AGM that Mooky looked relaxed, just his demeanour and tone of voice alone gave me confidence.

If the appeal result comes out before the end of the year and if it is negative then it is very serious. However, a negative appeal isn’t the end of the road in my opinion. In terms of Canada, there is still the Supreme Court, and considering that this case has no precedent, it very well could make it there. In terms of outside of Canada, CINE could very well refuse to pay, and consequently Cineplex would be forced to go to a different court to seek the money. So in the event of a negative result, there are still a lot of paths we could take.

If I were Mooky, I would have lost patience by now. I would have gone straight in, done a hostile takeover and finish this thing once and for all.

All in my opinion.

@deltalo even if they got them from this so-called newspaper, CINE would not just give free tickets out willy nilly like that. What a preposterous proposition.

Likelihood is that the newspaper or someone has paid CINE for it when it was used. Similar to the Meerkat Movies, when people are given free tickets CINE will still receive their money.

That is my understanding.

@Tegop, please see page 77 of the Annual Report. The Company holds no treasury shares.

Therefore, they have no shares to sell off. It’s all just standard market conditions unfortunately, when the dust settles hopefully we should see a return to high 30/40s again (and £1 after that hopefully) :)

That is all my understanding.

@Hussartbr, dilution may take place, but in my opinion it is conditional on two things.

1. The box office doesn’t return to 2019 levels in the near future. We might be ok if it doesn’t go to 2019 levels for a year or two (as long as we aren’t far off ie no less than 60-70%), but if it is prolonged then yes, I think they will need to dilute at some point in all honesty. Nisan never ruled anything out yesterday.

2. I think it is clear that there is zero point in doing a rights issue at this current price. Particularly with directors holding 20% cumulatively, they will get toasted considering they are already down so much. Rights issue will only take place when the price is higher, I think the BoD were perhaps kicking themselves when they didn’t do a rights issue at 124p, but I think they likely thought that 124p was not the ceiling and that is was going to go higher, just like many of us here.

Those are my thoughts.

That was in response to deltalo’s question about shareholder value.

Overall I am confident in the Board from what I saw yesterday. They didn’t shy away from shareholders, and they really got into it. I was impressed to say the least.

HNS did mention that Mooky was looking at the share price yesterday, it goes to show that he is concerned just as much as we are. He holds over 1 million shares personally, and another 273 million are under joint ownership with his brother, just as he said yesterday ‘we are all in this together’. It is nice to see that sense of ‘collectiveness’.

@Hussartbr, yes, someone came as a proxy for Hargreaves Lansdown :)

From the Annual Report (correct as of 15th March 2022, and I think we would have received notification if this changed):

Mooky Greidinger: 1,313,173 shares
Israel Greidinger: 899,938 shares
Nisan Cohen: 99,549 shares
Renana Teperberg: 143,814 shares
Alicja Kornasiewicz: 135,000 shares
Arni Samuelsson: 9,500 shares
Ashley Steel: 31,042 shares
Camela Galano: 10,000 shares
Damian Sanders: 57,942 shares
Dean Moore: 15,000 shares
Rick Senat: 699,862 shares (stepped down from the Board, this is the number as of 12th May 2021).
Scott Rosenblum: 100,000 shares

There is also a separate 275,720,505 shares held for both Mooky and Israel.

So all in total: I calculated 278,535,463 shares held by the directors.

No specific question Cruis

All seemed very strange, I can’t put my finger on it. It can’t be that they didn’t want to answer it because afterwards Mooky answered many of them with open arms…

@BlueBuxton, I really should have asked him that, this would have been the perfect time

@Tommy, I believe the entire RCF max is $462.5m. I also recall CINE telling us that the RCF has been maxed out, so to get it down to 35%, we would need to repay back about $301m by the covenant test in June. If they do this, then no test takes place for CINE, because CINE is only subject to testing on the RCF when more than 35% of it has been used.

If CINE pass the covenant test in June, then the company is absolutely solid in my opinion. That would mean the company have managed to meet the base case despite a challenging market environment (sparse movie releases in the first quarter).

Even if the company doesn’t secure a successful appeal, then who’s to say this won’t go to the Supreme Court? Who’s to say CINE won’t just refuse to pay it full stop until a UK court hears it? That was one thing I forgot to ask Mooky, whether the company has considered undertaking a hostile takeover of Cineplex…

One thing is clear from today’s AGM; the company always repeated that they are considering ALL options.

All in my opinion

@TheMadStork, you should have seen the mood and manner in which Mooky and other executives presented themselves today. None of them were concerned to face shareholders and they were in fact happy to take question after question after question. Mooky and others in no rush to leave at all.

Mooky holds 20%, his family fortunes get wiped out if there is D4E swap or any other sort of dilution. That is a complete last resort for him. Institutional investors and Mooky aren’t selling, so why should I?

@Robin, we hold a lot more power than you think.

I don’t know if you were invested at the time, but when CINE releases the LTIP (the bonus scheme that is dependent on the price), Legal and General (substantial CINE shareholders) got p*ssed off and voted against the entire thing. If we retail investors also agreed with them and formed a pact, we could have easily gotten the LTIP voted out and vetoed.

That being said, I don’t have an issue with the LTIP, it was just an example of how retail has power if just one of their institutional investors disagrees.