Member Info for mountainous

Bobby you say that retail investors are quite insignificant here. Then how come 99.9% of the shares up for grabs in T212 have been taken by the shorters? If our holdings were so insignificant then why would they have bothered with paying the extra interest on our shares if they were barely enough to make a difference?

Jaybux don’t worry about it if they’re in an ISA, they’re protected from being loaned out by law.

I will be honest I didn’t know that placing a pending order on shares restricts them from being loaned out when they’re not in an ISA. I would assume this is a well kept secret from the stockbrokers as they collect interest on shares when they get loaned out, so by restricting them from being loaned out they aren’t getting as much interest.

Don’t think to yourself that you’re not making a big difference by putting a pending order. There are close to 30,000 shareholders of CINE on Trading 212 alone who are getting their shares loaned out. Every little helps.

SoManyQuestion, no. Shares in an ISA are not allowed by law to be loaned out. Trading 212 also state this themselves in the help centre section.

Hello Lar, I believe it is today after hours? So around 8-9pm today?

Good morning all, hope everyone is well and has had a great weekend.

We finished last week green with a nice rise on Friday. Today (now at time of writing) we have a c. 4% rise today too.

Court case decision will hopefully be out within the next 4-6 weeks based on previous cases, so hopefully by Christmas this whole farce will be over and done with.

Shorts are closing due to the fact that they understand a large sp rise is on the horizon. We are nearly at the end of seeing a 60-70p sp everyone :)

Have a pleasant day all, here’s to another green week!

Also an interesting fact, on Trading 212 Cineworld has more shareholders than the following companies:

Shopify
Barclays
Walmart
Pfizer
Starbucks
PepsiCo
Tesco
Visa
Uber
Under Armour
Zoom
AstraZeneca
Etsy
Nike
Peloton

Several banks as well:
-Bank of Montreal
-Bank of Nova Scotia
-Royal Bank of Canada

Sounds like we are quite popular lol

I am extremely glad someone has brought this up because a few weeks ago I actually got interested in knowing how much CINE T212 was lending out. They flat out refused to give me an answer saying they were working on a functionality to allow all users to see the number.

I wish to inform you that it is ILLEGAL for T212 to lend out your shares if you hold them in an ISA. I hold mine in an ISA and therefore the percentage lent out is 0%. Whereas if you hold them in a standard invest account they are allowed to lend them out. This was also the reason why I could not see the data. So if you can it is preferable to hold them in an ISA account.

I am beyond shocked to see that 99.9% of the shares you bought are being lent out. I also wish to inform you that the 99.9% proportion is the same for everyone else. T212 has 28,169 CINE shareholders using their standard account, and effectively ALL of those 28,169 shareholders are having their shares lent out.

Unfortunately, there is no way out of it. But here’s one thing I understand about it as well, when short sellers obtain shares from retail accounts it is a very risky move. The reason being that you can sell at anytime. When you sell, it is effectively a margin call without the massive price rise, because that means that the shares must be returned to your account immediately to allow the sell to take place. If they stoop to the level of going for retail accounts to obtain shares that means that there are barely any larger stockholders out there that are willing to lend the stock to them, as no short seller would take the most riskiest route when there is a safer one.

That is what I understand from it, I may be incorrect. Although it is all very interesting and that 99.9% figure shows big desperation. They have basically gone to T212 and taken every share that they can.

Solid post MoneyPit

I think at the moment with the court case still up in the air, shorters may be trying their luck. If we (hopefully don’t) lose, then it provides a good opportunity for them to exit. If we win, then they get roasted to a crisp, especially with the kind of average short price NHC has.

Like many have said here before, the shorts started when CPX came into the picture, presumably because they were expecting some kind of equity issuance to pay for it, so they perhaps viewed it as a way to make a quick buck.

Let’s see what happens. I continue to hold. It’s been a fantastic week imo ending above 63 and also in the green.

Have a great weekend all, off to see Eternals tomorrow too :)

Seeing the title of this thread, I would like to remind people that there is no sustained and heavy institutional selling. Only small transactions here and there.

If you were listening to the court proceedings when Mooky, Nisan and Israel were testifying, we saw evidence whereby large investors were messaging executives in the middle of the night and getting replies and even being offered to speak on the phone late in the evening. CINE has a deep connection with its institutional investors and rightly so, 78.15% of CINE is owned by them.

Therefore, if anything happens or is of concern to them, they are the first to know out of all of us. So personally, the fact that they are staying and holding gives me confidence. Some of these institutional investors are pension fund providers and all of them have clients with heavy money in the firm, so they will be taking extra precaution imo.

If the company released an update with the current court case ongoing, the good news would be diluted. The court case is unfortunately still lingering about, and until that is settled once and for all investors will be weary.

All of us who are invested right now are taking a substantial risk, but imo it is not an unreasonable risk. Listening to the court case, the possibility of $2.1bn payout is beyond impossible imo, the synergies alone have proven that along with the ordinary course violation.

In my opinion, a 0-0 result is likely. The Arrangement Agreement clearly states that one side can only exit if the other side broke and if YOUR OWN side kept to the agreement. If it was a case that we broke the agreement and CPX kept it precisely, then we’d be in trouble, but even in a case like that $2.1bn is ridiculously overinflated. And as we know, CPX hasn’t exactly been the best of business partners with us, and we saw several examples of which space fails me to mention.

Markets don’t like uncertainty but we will just have to wait, I think investor relations is doing the same thing so that the trading update can have more positive weight on investors and the sp when it is released.

And to think I sold MRK at $72, this is going to be a fantastic source of revenue for them. I’ve seen the videos where they were spewing the pills out of machines like crazy, so they must have a massive profit margin.

Just caught up with the comments I missed earlier today. Very happy to see that our bit is now done and no more ear damage from Mr Mark (unless if they decide to appeal if given the chance, I may need ear defenders for that one).

All in all, I feel like we are in a decent place. The one thing i’m thinking about is how cineworld is going about renovating and opening new cinemas whilst this is going on. As we saw during the pandemic, our management is quite pragmatic, we saw it especially with the cost-cutting. So something is telling me that CINE MAY have already spoken to borrowers and secured some kind of contingency financing to be deployed in planning of the worst case scenario of $2.1bn occurring (you have a better chance of winning the euromillions). I just don’t see how management can go around and improve the estate like that with so much money potentially at stake and risk getting caught with their pants down if we need to pay out something large.

I am fairly confident that we will exit this with very little to no damages to pay, but it is good to have money aside to prepare for the worst case scenario. With how extravagant CINE is being with estate improvements I am inclined to believe that we have some kind of financing ready to deploy.

I would also like to remind everyone that part of the lawyer’s work is to evaluate the case of their side and then advise the respective company on how strong their argument is. Of course they would do this in private. If cineworld was advised that their case is weak by the lawyers, then they wouldn’t be going around and renovating the estate, they’d start cash preservation to prepare for a payout, so the fact that we are not seeing this makes me optimistic.

Of course, it is also good to note that we are not seeing any large institutional selling right now, polaris was a slight decrease but the net change was 0. They have more resources and knowledge than us, so i’m sure if something bad was evidently on the horizon from the inside they would begin to sell off.

Just my thoughts, hope everyone has a great Friday :)

Hello Wellington, I’m not watching the court case at the moment, but to my understanding the only way that CPX can get that $2.1bn is if a) they can prove it’s fair compensation for them which they haven’t managed to do and b) if they didn’t break the contract either which they did by breaching the ordinary course covenant.

So even if it is the case that we mixed up, that doesn’t mean CP is instantly getting $2.1bn because they haven’t acted perfectly either.

Similarly, the only way we can get our counter-claim is if a) we can prove we did nothing wrong at all and didn’t breach the agreement (this is the highly controversial part but I can’t see how we have) and b) we can prove that the amount is reasonable (which I think we can as it is just the legal costs as far as I’m aware)

So the worst case scenario there even if we somehow breached, we just wouldn’t get our counter-claim and wouldn’t win anything, just like CPX because they breached the agreement (A 0-0 result which is still great for us). CPX is FAR far off from getting their full amount.

That is the way I see it.

imo, the light at the end of the tunnel is visible. Merck pill now approved, interest rates in the UK are not increasing for now, court case done today, shorts closing, box office improving etc.

We are also being met with a nice green sp, which is absolutely fantastic, sentiment across the market is now improving for CINE.

Mr Mark appeared distressed yesterday with his head in his hands, and Mr Steep and others have done a great job of dissecting and disproving the Cineplex case. I don’t think we will be stuck in the mid 60s come EOY…

This court case would have been over today if Mr Mark wasn’t stood like a lemon trying to defend some absurd claim for synergies.

The fact that this has even reached court in the first place is sufficient to annoy me, Cineplex is here just to try its luck. There is no basis for their claim at all no matter how you look at it imo.

Hello Hussart, there is a lot of uncertainly around the court case and COVID right now.

In my opinion, those are the two things keeping us down, the box office is improving well.

Well guys, we are at the end of our journey in terms of the court case. From today onwards we have done the best that we can and the rest of the road is now left for the judge to come to her conclusion.

Whether a win or a loss or a draw, we all here agree that the landscape is improving for this company. We have achieved about 80% of 2019 levels in October with only a fraction of the releases. Once we return back to normal full releases our revenue will be way beyond 2019, combined with the cost-saving as well.

This is a long-term one, but I’m happy to wait for my reward. It is just a matter of time imo :)

Hello MoneyPit, indeed there was evidence of that as well in the length of deferrables.

Precisely that rm, I will not take credit for that as someone made the suggestion on this board a few days ago.

However what you have said here perfectly matches up with the behaviour and language used by Cineplex’s lawyers throughout these proceedings. They have been excessively defensive, much more than our lawyers in comparison. If they genuinely believed that they had a case they would have laid out the facts and wouldn’t need to be so defensive like that. It isn’t just Mr Mark either, Ms Rosenthal is the exact same too, which imo shows desperation. I also find that Mr Mark was using the trick where he takes one word and infers it in an alternative way, he did it quite a bit with Mooky. He wouldn’t need to be opportunistic like that if he had a valid case.