The next focusIR Investor Webinar takes places on 14th May with guest speakers from Blue Whale Growth Fund, Taseko Mines, Kavango Resources and CQS Natural Resources fund. Please register here.
I was suggesting only part of the debt being swapped Wolf, please don’t read only what you want to read.
An RNS is by definition an information for shareholders. This one was simply a mandatory update that they NEEDED to put out after all things developed. Don’t forget that lawyers were working on an RNS for months.
Now, could they have said anything different? Could they have said that things are under way for shareholders to recoup?
In my view (and hope) they had to either say good or most likely bad and they had no much choice at this moment in time.
Far fetched theory or a possibility?
The way I see our way out of this pickle:
There are 2 major options: sale or D4E. First thing that needs to happen for us to stand a chance is for the D4E option to prevail. I guess we all agree that a sale would not bring anything to us.
Then, assuming that D4E happens, it should not be for the entire debt. If, let’s say, half of debt is kept on the books, than the D4E is very likely to keep us in the game. I am 100% convinced that Cine would easily serve 2-3 bln of debt going forward. Why swap the entire debt?
If I was Cine & Co that is how I would play this. And this is what I cling my hopes to.
Shareholders seeking the appointment of an equity committee must also demonstrate that their interests will not be adequately protected by any other parties. As a starting point, most 673694-1 constituencies in a Chapter 11 case have divergent interests. The post-petition lender is out to assure that its post-petition financing is repaid. Pre-petition secured lenders are out to secure a full recovery on their indebtedness, or at least realise the value of their collateral. The creditors' committee wants comfort in the fact that unsecured creditors are, at a minimum, paid prior to any distribution to equity. These considerations, in turn, are the focus of the bankrupt debtor – before much attention is given to equity.
Indeed, the legislative history of the Code reflects that the purpose of an equity committee is to counteract the natural tendency of a debtor in distress to pacify large creditors, with whom the debtor would expect to do business at the expense of small and scattered public investors. The other constituencies have their own interests to protect and cannot reasonably be expected to protect the interests of equity. Under the proper circumstances, the appointment of an official equity committee may be the only way to ensure a fair process and adequate representation of equity.
A shareholder's first step in requesting the appointment of an official equity committee is sending a letter directly or through an “ad hoc committee” to the Office of the US Trustee (the “UST”). Then, the UST will attempt to determine the level of interest among shareholders.
“Ad hoc” or informal committees often will already have been formed before such a request, so that equity's concerns may have already been brought to the attention of management or debtor's counsel (with less than satisfactory results). These committees consist of shareholders who are knowledgeable of the company's condition and typically disenchanted with the attention given to their interests or management's general intentions regarding equity. These informal committees invariably are represented by counsel. In fact, given the volume of recent equity committee solicitations, there are a growing number of law firms and financial advisory firms who actively compete to represent such committees. Like professionals for official creditors' committees, 673694-1 professionals for official equity committees are compensated from assets of the bankruptcy estate.
Realising the objective of an appointment of an “official” equity committee requires immediate action by shareholders. One impediment in the process often will be a cool reception or even opposition by the debtor. One way to expedite the process is to seek support from the Securities & Exchange Commission (“SEC”). With SEC's support of an official equity committee, the UST may be more receptive to the idea. Otherwise, filing a motion with the Court may be the only other option in a fast moving case.
just out of curiosity, google this and see what you get across the last 2 years :)
"warns shareholders wipe out"
one way street for me
why talk down the share and gospel its fall down to nothing instead of simply suspend it if that is the case?
this RNS is all smoke and mirrors.
it is truly amazing to see people's statements after they finally chicken out and sell :)))
strong valid point LTH
I am here all they way Shaz. Good to see you are also sticking.
and that is supposed to be a meaningful change of wording...? :)
goodbye Royal with Cheese. Go lick your wounds in a dark corner.
just like you did, selling at 3p while now it is touching 3.2p
well done
Wolf, again, none of these what you mention are new.
Royal, you are already on loss :)
Royal, I estimate you will regret it in a matter of days. Goodbye.
I do not agree Wolf. The wording is not decisive or final as you suggest, it is the same stew of "maybe", "could be", "expected", "potentially", that it has always been since C11 emerged.
I am still saying there was no call for such an announcement, especially that all these warning were given several times before. It just does not seem right...