Member Info for Quiggers52

Hoovered -up another 10,000.
TY :)))
GLA

A valuation approach appears to me to be basically similar to the pricing of a call option.
One can value the "equity" using option pricing methods, but it is not easy. The inputs are very technical. And I have no idea how one would manage the potential dilution. Such an approach makes DCF a walk in the park.
Be useful if any financial engineers were on this BB. But this stuff is way beyond my pay-grade tbh.

Jefff
If only it were THAT simple. I read about the 20% but ...
Section 2.10 Interest
(a) Rate of Interest.
(i) [Reserved].
(ii) Subject to the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement, at the option of Holdings, all Loans shall be made as Base Rate Loans or Term SOFR Loans; provided, however, that all such Loans shall be made as Base Rate Loans unless, subject to Section 2.14 (Special Provisions Governing Term SOFR Loans), the Notice of Borrowing specifies that all or a portion thereof shall be Term SOFR Loans, as the case may be. All Loans shall bear interest on the unpaid principal amount thereof from the date such Loans are made (including through funding into the Funding Account) until paid in full, except as otherwise provided in Section 2.10(d) below, as follows: (A) if a Base Rate Loan, at a rate per annum equal to the sum of (A) the Base Rate as in effect from time to time plus (B) the Applicable Margin; and (B) if a Term SOFR Loan, at a rate per annum equal to the sum of (A) Term SOFR determined for the applicable Interest Period plus (B) the Applicable Margin in effect from time to time during such Interest Period.
(b) Interest Payments on Loans.
(i) Interest accrued on each Base Rate Loan shall be payable in arrears (A) on the last Business Day of each March, June, September and December, commencing on the first such day following the making of such Base Rate Loan, (B) in the case of Base Rate Loans, upon the payment or prepayment thereof in full or in part on the principal amount paid or prepaid and (C) if not previously paid in full, at maturity (whether by acceleration or otherwise) of such Loan and
(ii) interest accrued on each Term SOFR Loan shall be payable in arrears (A) on the last day of each Interest Period applicable to such Loan, (B) upon the payment or prepayment thereof in full or in part on the principal amount paid or prepaid and (C) if not previously paid in full, at maturity (whether by acceleration or otherwise) of such Loan.
(c) [Reserved].
(d) Default Interest. Upon the occurrence and during the continuance of any Event of Default, upon notification by the Administrative Agent (acting at the direction of the Requisite Lenders) to the Borrower, all outstanding Obligations shall bear interest at a fluctuating interest rate per annum at all times equal to the Default Rate and thereafter such Obligations shall bear interest at the Default Rate to the fullest extent permitted by applicable laws and without further
notice, motion or application to, or hearing before, or order from, the Bankruptcy Court.
[**extracted from DIP page 57**]

D4E provisions might be detailed in Schedule III under Collateral Documents but they are not attached to the DIP.

Jefff
"If speculation and reports are true that CW havnt [sic] as yet defaulted on there financial obligations. And the 1.9 billion raised can be used to meet current obligations. Can creditors legally demand there money back early."

We`re talking about the DIP? If there is no "Event of Default" (as defined in the DIP - and NB, the list of what constitutes a "default" i.e. a breach of CW`s obligations, is very long and detailed indeed) on the part of CW then it follows there is no breach of those obligations.
So no, the Lenders cannot repudiate the agreement or trigger their "Remedies" if there is no default on the part of CW: that is the general position. It is possible to contract-out of the general position but after a quick scan of the DIP I think the general position prevails.
As I mentioned on another thread, it is unclear in the DIP what the "remedies" would be, in the event of a default, and that is because three provisions (or sub-articles to use the American jargon) look to have been redacted ("reserved").
This could be a drafting error. (But I doubt it.)
So to get back to the query. No I don`t think so. That would be non-standard.
Wishing you all the best.

Thought you were banging on about one of your ex`s STUDio
"Dear Prudence,
won`t you come out to play"
2 bag would do me. I`m not greedy.
GLA

Nice find that , ptodds - "interesting" indeed!!

$1,935,000,000 is the "Debt Facility" in the DIP excluding interest and other costs.
Assuming a share price of 5p the max. equity then under a D4E assuming nil re-payment and maximum default (not going to happen of course) is 4,485 billion shares. Where you get to down from that is as previously stated frankly anyone`s guess: so many assumptions, variables, unknowns. I have no idea and I dont see how anybody can.
What I would be much more interested in is the 12th and 13th of October. If CW do not get a result it is I think common ground even on this BB that it is game over? Depending on who one talks to, a "result" varies from: (i) reversal ; (ii) or a reduction leaving nominal damages; (iii) to 75%, 50%, 25% reduction in the damages. Upholding the first instance ruling obvs not a result.
I`m interested in loss of synergies case law around remoteness of damages. This will be a critical decision; it would be anyway, but a fortiori given the present circumstances

WoW - I admire your patience but I think you are wasting your time quite frankly on some on this BB. It does not surprise me that investors on here refer to other non-relevant Ch. 11`s when their own is in the public domain and all they have to do is sit down and read it - the CIP. But they cannot be arsed sounds like.
When I read it, I query what happens if CW default? The "Event of Default" section is like a mile long. Typical American drafting - dense prose formatted to make it very difficult to read. I note there is a Remedies section, so here one would have thought we would have found the answers to how much dilution there might be? But other than saying the automatic stay is lifted and then giving some limits (a) through to (g) it then stops and the next three provisions have been redacted as "reserved". This is quite deliberate. They did not want this in the public domain it seems. If the provisions - there are 3 of them see articles 9.3 to 9.5 inclusive, did not contain unseen remedies, this clause would have stopped at 9.2 (Remedies) but it does not. I suppose it could be an error but that is so unlikely, these guys don`t make such silly mistakes although there is the Word to PDF format "Error! bookmark not defined" (common) but that happens because of the times scales, they were rushing and I have done it myself.
If I were minded to do so I would write to the Court and ask for an explanation. Also I`d write to the CW lawyers and ask them the reasoning behind this. It might be nothing, it might be everything. The actual mechanics of the D4E do not appear to be evident in this DIP unless this is where they were drafted in. There are several other agreements too which may be in the public domain - the UK Security Agreement, the USA Security Agreement et al. These are the Collateral Documents. Again, if if were me I`d be asking to see them, not posting hopeful links to Revlon articles or any other irrelevant distraction. But it is not me so I`m thankful. Happy to help with clarifications (as it seems you are) but it seems some don`t want that, and some are openly aggressive. It is no skin of my back. I understand its nothing personal, it comes from the pain of loss and raw emotion and fear. Not reason. But I salute your approach. Really.

Page 26 of the DIP:
“Collateral Documents” means the U.S. Security Agreement, the U.S. Pledge Agreement, the UK Security Agreement, the Mortgages, the Control Agreements, the IP Security Agreements, each other security and pledge agreement listed on Schedule III (Collateral Documents and Provisions) (as such schedule may be amended or supplemented from time to time) and any other document executed and delivered by a Loan Party granting a Lien on any of its property to secure
payment of the Obligations.
These documents perhaps would support the claims about existing equity holders being "wiped out" but they are not attached. If they are I would be interested to read them.
I do agree that this seems to be a standard refrain from the press. Ask the jouno, "why"? and I doubt he would be able to answer as he probably has not read the prepetition agreements, the DIP, the Orders, Interim and Final etc.

CP case slated for 2 days 12, 13 October. Who knows how long the Court will take to hand down ruling.
Wishful thinking if you hope the damages will be reduced to nil, that would be of course the best result. But regretfully it is unlikely to happen. There is case law in this jurisdiction which supports the court of first instance`s ratio decidendi (reasons). Canada and England are both common law jurisdictions and authorities are persuasive. Having said that, nobody knows for sure and I do hope you are correct in your wishes - it would certainly be a wonderful day for Cine LTHs.
Which cannot be said to be the case for the DIP Credit Agreement:
"The cinemas chain said that an American bankruptcy court had granted it access to up to $785 million in financial aid secured from the lenders. This has bought it more time to reduce its debts and to restructure its balance sheet in a move that would, in effect, wipe out existing shareholders" The Times: 10/9/22
If you really feel The Times has an agenda against CINE on the basis of this I suggest to you that might just shows emotional bias on your part.
That is not unusual of course. Anything not in line with hope/optimism is labelled a "de-ramper" which I find amusing as it is absurd. But then there is a lot of absurdity on BB like this in circumstances like this, where people`s equity is at risk of total loss.
What I cannot digest is how others are always to blame: it is Covid, the Studios, the lack of audiences, the Times, or the Sunday Times, or the Financial Times, or the press in general, or the MMs, or people like me, or shorters etc etc... Which is all *******s. The people to blame are the clowns running this show, the BoD and the CEO. Aggressive acquisition strategy having backfired amongst other reasons. And very bad luck. All egg - one basket = smashed
Why many of you still refer to him as "Mooky" as though he is your best mate is beyond me.
Look, I really hope you are right. I mean no ill-will. I hope The Times is wrong. But please, adjust to the reality which is that there were lawyers for the Holdings, for Barclays, for the Lenders, for the Cine subs and Group. I didnt see any lawyers representing the Shareholder`s interests. And if you think the Gruesome Twosome are doing that then I wish you luck. Here`s hoping.

https://cases.ra.kroll.com/Cineworld/Home-DocketInfo
see 185
The DIP Credit Agreement - it is all there in black and white; there ought not to be any confusion. However, without sight of the numerous other contracts referred to within its pages.... That, and you might wish to spend 1 or 2 weeks trying to read it, yeah, oh and er, 6 years at law school and articles would definitely help, the definitions section alone runs to 48 pages!
Thank God I don`t have to review stuff like this any more. Then, I was paid for such torture.
Now, I dont have to, praise be!
But I praise also any brave souls willing to do so.... Bravo whoever you are
GLA

Do you see a divi in the foreseeable? I know this is pure speculation. IIRC PmcD rebutted that suggestion. Perhaps he is thinking growth.
But who knows...?
All I do know for one thing, if this retraces to 27 p I'm loading up again and this time I will be ready!

Me too Rift: got a very nice 4 fig. divi coming from SLP payable 2/12 and before I could transfer, up this goes!.
You snooze, you lose!
Still - remind myself, don`t be greedy, and be ready to move quickly as there will be other buying opportunities again I feel.
GLA

Shoots up 6.3% in 1 day. (10% North this week.)
After a heavy lull, perhaps rays of sunshine for us all now breaking through...?
GLA

Yep, the earnings to market cap ratio or cash yield is 21.3%
Not bad eh?!

A federal judge is offering a guaranteed yield of more than 20% to lenders willing to advance more cash to now-bankrupt Cineworld Group Plc. US Bankruptcy Judge Marvin Isgur dangled the yield in the theater chain’s first Chapter 11 hearing Thursday after saying he probably wouldn’t approve a crucial bankruptcy financing package without major revisions. He took issue with the existing $1.94 billion loan proposal because it would mostly be used to repay old debt.
But with only $4 million of cash on hand, Cineworld desperately needs more money to stay afloat. Isgur promised investors the juicy return, which is similar to what they’d get under the original proposal, on cash advanced to fund Cineworld’s operations.
In exchange, the financing package would be tweaked to delay a $1 billion pay-down of old debt for several months, giving other Cineworld stakeholders a chance to investigate the financing and search for a better deal.

“It’s a very good deal and it’s within the authority I have,” Isgur said in the hearing, held by video conference. “I want to save the debtor, and I want to do it in a way that’s following the law.”
Lenders including Blackstone Alternative Credit Advisors, Cyrus Capital Partners and Credit Suisse Asset Management agreed to provide the $1.94 billion prior to the bankruptcy, according to court papers. They’re part of a group that holds most, but not all, of Cineworld’s most senior debt.
Isgur instructed the company and its lenders to discuss the proposal during a break in the hearing Thursday. The proceedings are set to resume at 3:15 p.m. local time in Texas.
The case is Cineworld Group plc and Great Escape Theatres LLC, 22-90168, U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas (Houston).

Reminds me so much of Buffett and BH.
No overly glossy diagrams, colour coming at you like a kaleidoscope, dazzling array of tables, charts etc etc. No. just simple lines of text - straight, to the point, honest. Has integrity written all over it.
I really hope SLP read these boards to obtain feedback because this is why I'm here. It is not just a great product.
It is people with integrity. So so very rare.
Thank you from this investor!
GLA

You did the research Luna, you rolled your sleeves up and poured over the statements checking, double checking etc etc. You did not get tempted by "unicorns" or momentum - "Moon" stocks or "meme" stocks. I could go on.
I`m presuming you did anyway!
If you didn`t - well fair play anyway!! haha

Macro is not my bag Tt I confess I need to keep an eye on the dollar index.
I do agree on the BoE - AB should have gone a long time ago. He was ****e at the FCA and like the Military, don`t sack incompetents, promote them, how many times have we seen that...
Anyway, well done to JP and the Team.
Onwards and upwards!
GLA

Love SLP! 8p - they just keep delivering. No bull. No froth.
And Rh up 3.6% since 2/9 so fingers crossed it is holding steady.
The killer is the dollar but that is beyond anyone`s control.
Another stunning performance in the context of companies mere survival being headline news - just look at CINE. Feel sorry for their LTHs; they will be wiped out.
GLA