Member Info for mountainous

We are getting a head start rm, probably another quarter are cineplex shareholders and the rest perhaps are executives from both companies and from the respective counsels. Equity analysts specialise in equity not law, so I doubt they’re looking at it, we are getting a good picture of the outcome here :)

If Mr Mark fails to shoot this down (which I think is likely) then Cineplex case has been totally disproven imo, there’s no saving it at that point. Lot of weight on his shoulders lol.

Even the current chart is showing that they exceeded (or would have exceeded) the debt ceiling on April 1st 2020.

Very fantastic to see that the Justice asked whether it was April 2021 or 2020, it shows she is looking at this with a lot of scrutiny.

All in black and white ‘incremental debt cineworld would have had to fund for the Financial Impact’ and it is clearly indicated.

I am very interested to see how Mr Mark argues this, hopefully he’s had some of Mrs Rosenthal’s cannabis to calm himself again otherwise I might need to take out my earphones lol

Rm, currently about 40 odd watching and nearly 10 people liked HNS’s comment with the link to the court case, that means that 1/4 of us watching are right here on this forum :)

Legend HNS, thank you very much :)

Thank you Bonkers, hope you’re keeping well

Does anybody at all have any idea what is happening with today’s proceedings? We are about 5 minutes out and no update on the court live-streaming link page???

Good afternoon BlueBuxton, I’m watching the link carefully. I don’t quite understand how they haven’t put the link up yet. Both Mr Steep and the judge said we’d be resuming tomorrow if I’m not mistaken, it’s very strange…

Alex- if I’m being very honest I share Mooky’s desire to be the biggest in the world, however what this court case has shown is that Cineplex has been very sneaky, I don’t know if Mooky and his team would feel comfortable re-engaging with them after they dragged us into court case cost us millions in fees.

Either way, there are plenty of other cinema chains out there for CW to acquire. Let’s see what happens. If Cineplex don’t win, it will likely plummet their sp and it could provide a great opportunity for us to acquire, it is all down to Mooky and execs at the end of the day :)

-Success in the court case (I would define that as leaving with low or zero damages to pay; counter-claim win is even better)
-Acquisition of Cineworld (no news, but American private equity groups are taking a large interest in UK companies)
- H2 and FY financial report (due in March 2022, but nevertheless still a large piece of news)
-Trading update likely due in November
-News about box office performance

Plenty going for this company, very excited about the future. I am quite sure that we will not remain at the 60s by EOY. Assuming a reasonable scenario of winning the court case and a good trading update, I would hope for high 80s-90s by the end of the year. Perhaps 100p if we are lucky.

Good morning all and have yourself a great Thursday, waiting patiently to see if today’s court case is happening or not…

Exactly, I heard the same thing at the end that they are restarting tomorrow at 10am.

Maybe they’re fixing the website as we speak.

FunInvestor, good evening to you and spot on.

I believe that by putting it towards the end before the closing statements it becomes the freshest piece of information in people’s minds. It effectively puts to bed all of Cineplex’s talk about how they didn’t deviate.

Thank you all for your responses to this thread, it has been nice to see people’s opinions and information.

My faith has been mostly restored by tonight’s KPMG witness, he has pulled out the receipts. He was even showing how much it differed in terms of the days to repay, up to 156 days??? The table about how everyone was increasing their debt in the Q1 and Q2 2020 by 10-17%, but Cineplex was repaying the debt just goes to show how sneaky they were. They deferred payments so they could repay the debt to keep under $725m. Cineplex argues that the pandemic was disadvantageous to them, but by the looks of things they effectively deferred the payments by massive amounts of days relative to what they were doing before, and expecting Cineworld to take up the bill…

Good afternoon all,

So I was having a look at the clause regarding the $725m debt limit and it says this:

‘Limit on Indebtedness. As at the Effective Time, the Company shall have no more than $725 million outstanding under the Company Credit Agreement (which shall exclude the item set out in Section 6.2(5) of the Company Disclosure Letter).’

All well and good. Then I had a look at the Company Credit Agreement statement:

‘Company Credit Agreement” means the seventh amended and restated credit agreement dated as of 13 November 2018 in respect of C$800 million credit facilities between, among others, Cineplex Entertainment Limited Partnership and Cineplex Inc. as borrowers and The Bank of Nova Scotia as administrative agent and sole bookrunner.’

So am I correct in suggesting that the $725m limit was only on that $800m debt facility? I.e, the debt limit was actually that Cineplex couldn’t take out more than $725m from the $800m credit facility that the Arrangement Agreement is describing here?

If this is the case, then did Cineplex actually breach? And if they didn’t, then what else do we have to back ourselves up?

That’s made me a tiny bit unsettled, maybe I’m just overthinking? Can someone more knowledgeable than me comment on this?

Thanks :)

Good evening all,

With regard to the KPMG witness, I agree that his performance was underwhelming, however I did not hear him say anything that hurt our case or supported CP. We cannot expect Cineworld to act in the same way that CP did with their finances, because WE were acquiring CP, it wasn’t the other way around. What we did with our finances is none of their business and it doesn’t prove any kind of ordinary course. Cineplex were making some comments that came from out of the air, they started by saying that they were deferring payments due to COVID, even though nobody ever foresaw COVID becoming such a significant issue back in January where they began to defer payments. We, on the other hand, had the money set aside for the transaction to take place and there is no hard and concrete evidence that suggests we didn’t want to complete the transaction, which is why our good friend Julie Rosenthal was extensively trying to pick at Nisan to get what she could, which was nothing.

I do wish that the last witness stood his ground more, but I didn’t hear him say anything damaging to us, so I don’t think it’s anything major to worry about.

At the end of the day, we have proven the additional deferments that took place and whether you agree or not, it is extra debt in reality. If we went through with the transaction all of the extra deferments would be on us to pay, so it is debt in disguise, simple as that. Hopefully tomorrow’s witness is more defensive.

Hahaha I love that BlueBuxton and KickThePuss XD

KickThePuss, he’s started the pacing up and down the room now as well lol

Precisely that smalltrader, cineplex broke the agreement no matter where you start or how you look at it.

Once again Mr Mark is not actually challenging what he said, he isn’t saying that by coupling the deferments doesn’t count as debt as his argument is. He is just running about in circles and referring to $34 all the time…

BlueBuxton he seems slightly more at ease this week. Maybe he got an exorcism…

Hello KickThePuss, I think it will either be a 0-0 result as you describe or we win our counter-claim. It is clear and simple, Cineplex broke the arrangement agreement, dragged us into court with screeching and useless counsel, and now it is crystal clear to see that Cineplex in fact did break the agreement. I personally believe that we ought to be compensated for legal costs as well, because the reality is that none of this was needed. It was a simple out of court matter to solve and it would have saved us and them money. They chose the hard way I suppose.