Member Info for mountainous

For all we know, Cineplex might have known all the way back in June that we were correct to terminate but in a desperate attempt to get some kind of benefit out of all of this they decided to pursue. Imagine having all of your shareholders believe that this deal was still going ahead at $34/share and then to be told that Cineworld terminated and that they’re not going to do anything about it. I think investors would have caused an uproar if that happened. Could have been a PR stunt. I find it beyond understanding how the lawyers are stood there defending this nonsense legitimately and I was beyond shocked to see Mr Mark still pursuing the claim for synergies.

Just a thought from me. Just because Cineplex didn’t decide to settle out of court doesn’t mean that they strongly believe that their case is valid.

Precisely that BreakfastBuffett, it can’t be one-sided unless if there was something in the Arrangement Agreement that I missed

BreakfastBuffett, not quite sure who your response is relating to. Is it to me or shortCINE?

Glad you got the reference Alex ;)

Hello shortCINE, I have had a read of that part of the agreement so I will give my understanding of it. The agreement states that Cineplex must not breach $725m on the credit facility and not the debt as a whole. Cineplex did NOT breach the $725m and remained just under it, but the way they went about it is where the problem lies. They strayed from ordinary course by paying back debt when everyone was doing the opposite and that is in direct contradiction to the Agreement Arrangement. It is that same Ordinary Course clause that protects companies from doing things that harm the business before it’s acquisition.

For example, if I had a school bus company and wanted to sell it off at $10/share, but then just before closure I decide to take all the buses away and sell them for my own profit, that would be a diversion from Ordinary Course and obviously it would adversely affect the purchaser of my school bus company.

Indeed, Cineworld cannot terminate the agreement due to the pandemic but that’s not what their argument is. Their argument is that Cineplex strayed from Ordinary Course. The repayment of debt was just one diversion, there were significant increases in the length of deferrables as well.

Hello shortCINE, in terms of the pandemic if you had a look at Mr Carlucci’s testimony you will see very strong compelling evidence that they strayed from ordinary course.

It was as clear as day when they revealed that Cineplex made a net reduction to it’s debt whilst everyone else including cineworld was increasing it. That could not be further from ordinary course. That alone invalidates Cineplex’s claim that they acted within ordinary course.

Thank you BlueBuxton :)

Lovely smile at the end by the judge too when she mentioned that Cineworld is starting their submissions after the recess :)

There is no way that Mr Mark is talking about loss of synergies again. This defence is the most dead in the water. Now he’s saying that the synergies that Cineplex would have saved are rent and other bill payments and that those are the synergies. Is he ok??

Cineplex wouldn’t suddenly see their rent and bill payments disappear, if we acquired them we’d still have to pay them, so these so-called synergies are a complete nonsense. Even our lawyers were like ‘what?!’

Honestly BlueBuxton, do you know when Cineplex is done with their statements and when we come on?

the judge is having NONE of it lol, the deep sigh at the end is an entire mood felt by all of us XD

Well BlueBuxton, when you come into court with a case like this and make one of the craziest claims for SYNERGIES WHICH WERE NEVER GOING TO BE YOURS ANYWAYS, what more can you expect from them in terms of defence lol.

I also note that Cineplex just keeps bringing up all different kinds of cases that have happened in the past.

It’s interesting how they’re not focusing on their own case at hand and are having to refer to all these other cases to back themselves up.

I laugh seeing how 3 of us have all quoted the ‘do you want me to make new law in Canada’ haha, this is such a lovely evening XD

I will be fair, Mr Mark is doing what lawyers need to do. They need to defend their side whether it’s correct or not. If you look at Mr Mark’s profile on Goodmans it says that ‘ Leading businesses and organizations look to Alan for his sound judgment and strategic advice as well as his renowned courtroom skills. Alan has a loyal following of clients who rely on him to handle their most significant legal disputes’

https://www.goodmans.ca/People/Alan_Mark

So what in the heck do you call this farce? He is coming across as ridiculously rude and he is heavily over complicating the matter. Bringing up all sorts of documents and some of them relate to law in other countries. He appears to be drinking an awful quantity of water as well, maybe trying to flush Ms Rosenthal’s cannabis from his system.

‘Are you asking me to make new law in Canada’ LOL

I must also ask as to why the CP lawyers are referring to quite literally every other law except Canadian law. Yesterday Ms Rosenthal was talking about the A B Stable case and she was saying that it wasn’t fair to rely on it because it was ‘wrong’ and under appeal. She was talking about US law, and today Mr Mark is doing the same and he said he is going to refer to English law in a bit as well.

Last time I checked this was a Canadian court??

The judge: ‘How is the court supposed to put that all together’ lol.

And now Mr Mark is telling the judge to ‘listen’, it’s a very bad look for Cineplex imo.

The judge is absolutely cornering him. Mr Mark is not answering her questions at all. The judge asked if the shareholders would get any kind of payout and he basically said that ‘well the sp will increase so they will benefit’. Mr Mark is also losing his words and he’s laughing to himself and saying he confused Peter Parker with Peter Graham and the Judge’s mouth didn’t smile a single bit.

FunInvestor- allow me to ask you this.

Bc sold up shares because he felt it was smart at the time. Perhaps he did it to take up profits or to reduce his risk. Would you say that he was ‘smart investing’? Because every day you appear to reprimand him…

Many found what he did as very objectionable, but he got a good profit out of it right? That is ‘smart investing’ by your definition, would you agree?

Good morning and spot on lpd and smalltrader :)

A short reducing is good in any case, but imo it is not smart investing to short CINE, as they actively negate my own (and our own) investments.

Any who, let’s hope for another green day today :)