Member Info for Quiggers52

Show me ANY CW cash flow statement from any year which has Cash from Operations of $1.5 BN less Cash from/to Investing less Cash from/to Financing to arrive at net $1 Billion.
But to be fair even if you could, frankly it is not relevant.
Those days - to the extent they even existed - are over.

HNS - you are confusing the legal entity for the business; they are two separate things.
I have no doubt the business will survive - the CW brand, logos, IP, pipe, employees TUPE`d over to new co; etc etc..
But the entity itself, company number "012345678" holding all of the other entities underneath.
That, my friend, is (or more correctly, will be) dust.

IIRC, in the same filing ,the estimated liabilities were up to $50 Billion.
= MASSIVE NEGATIVE EQUITY
= THIS LEGAL ENTITY IS WORTHLESS
NB the legal entity, not the business (IP, logo, TMs, pipe, etc) That has huge potential which is why bankers who are massively underwater, are throwing even more money at this business - BUT NOT THIS LEGAL ENTITY.
Phoenix or quasi-phoenix is what is coming....

Oh God, you still don`t get it. Limited liability as an equity investor means the creditors cannot come after you for their losses. The most you are exposed to is your capital invested. You can walk away and they cannot sue you.
This company - if put up for sale in UK might sell for a peppercorn - £1. Why? There has to be "consideration" (no matter how small) for legal reasons, and it has negative equity. The buyer is not purchasing anything other than massive debt.
Please - do not sink any more of your hard earned into this entity. It is worthless.
You will lose even more.
The creditors will take control and take precedence over anyone else until they are paid off in full either in this entity or a SPV or some other vehicle.
Walk away, be thankful you cannot be sued, and you can thank me in 6 months time for saving you some dosh.

Ironic that even their own lawyers, McCarthy Tetrault LLP, are one of the largest 30 creditors: see
file:///C:/Users/pqui/Downloads/c379c8e5-1d18-4244-b0a5-a22c4bbd2a0b.pdf
page 11 of 27 item creditor no 18. (This relates to the recent Cineplex Case they are unpaid are creditors - $1.66 m)
Knowing that fact, why any lawyer would take on their appeal case is beyond my understanding.
I see the Banks/Lenders taking control. Were the insolvent company VW (with an airfield full of new parked cars awaiting sale i.e. real, valuable, assets) then the Lenders would force winding-up, take control and liquidate the assets.
But CW don`t have cars or even properties, they have carpets, and popcorn machines, and screens on a wall, and lots of nice seats, and posters on walls that would all have to be removed by contractors and sold for diddly. That is not an option.
So the Lenders, who always have first dibs, will pay off Mucky`s trade creditors at (say) 25 cents in the dollar - take it or leave it - so the likes of Disney, Sony, and other trade creditors, although big names, are holding no cards here. The Lenders are stumping up the $1.94 billion and unless any of those are contributing, it is that or nothing.
When they are paid off and the bondholders if applicable, it is New Co up and running and what CW does have is a great brand. It will be BAU with the Banks taking all or the lion`s share of the future profits until the $1.94Bn is paid off (with interest).
Whether it is taken private or remains public who knows but regretfully Old Co -CW as we know it now will cease to exist (and the equity in it).
GLA and I`m off to await a Q4 spike in AET following completion of two recent deals. Those who wish to join on that journey are welcome and you likely will make some if not all of your money back and if you dont believe me look back in 6 months!
Adios.

Yeah, you are right.
CW used QCs in UK litigation so I made an assumption they would do the same in a much bigger case, but seems they did not?! (Maybe they should have done but none were available!)
Thanks for input - makes sense and as you say - watch this space!

You may well be right, but note that you are taking a position that even Cine`s own QC did not argue before the Court.
My own view is the appeal will not be heard.
CP will settle as part of a "plan". It makes little commercial sense for them to incur yet more hefty legal fees in these circumstances going after a man of straw. So I think that race has run.
But where it fits in with the other creditors, only He upstairs knows!

Even if they get a "result" and have the damages reduced by half, that is still $495m that, it appears, they do not have.
If US/Regal is their most productive market, and they are granted Ch. 11 today, then how is it possible for them - in terms of the UK - to not seek a CVA? They must do surely?

No. As a former corporate lawyer I would be on the phone to my CEO and advising that he/she drop everything and issue a statement - even if just a holding statement - denying in no uncertain terms the published article(s).
That is standard. Absolutely 100%. Standard
That it did not happen, tells everybody the truth. Crystal ball not required.

No rebuttal RNS ought to tell people what , in their heart of hearts they know (or ought to, if they have a modicum of intelligence, ... that the statement tweeted at 13.13 is not untrue.
That it rose right at the end beggars belief.
Roll with the punches, tomorrow`s another day.

" If you watch L2 the bid is being dropped on tiny sells. Signs there isn't a clear runway"

-Any chance we could have that in layman`s language ?! :)

I get Level 2 but what it does (or what it is for I don`t subscribe to it) but know it is used for day or short term trading/speculating only from what I`ve read.

Nothing as I can see on their website at IR.

Until this deal complete, this SP isn`t going anywhere. When it does, God knows what next.

*2021 not 2019

The 2019 Trocadero litigation yields some key info:
daily take £21,269 over a 419 day period from March 2018 to May 2019.
Monthly that is £647,534
We identified a working capital shortfall of £87.5m per month from last A/R
87.5m/647k = 135 cinemas at least equal to the Trocadero to meet that threshold without incurring more debt.
CW have reportedly 751 screens in 10 countries not all of course anywhere near the Trocadero level I presume but with those numbers surely enough to cover their short-term liabilities?
Perhaps, the M&A fever caused all of this to unravel? I loathe acquisitions really do nothing but trouble for equity and makes bankers and directors rich but just my (limited) direct experience.
source: https://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2021/3103.html&query=(Cineworld)
GLA

I am 99% certain CW will not win that appeal. I agree the damages awarded may be reduced - if that is what is meant by winning, then I think that is an arguable position.
But honestly, even that outcome I am doubtful on because CW did not really offer up an alternative IIRC. What is not clear from the judgment is how the NPV of the cash flows (synergies) was arrived at. They took an annuity basically and multiplied it discounted back but at what rate was not stated.
From where we are now though October 12 seems a long way off. I`m thinking this won`t go to appeal and a deal will be done and is being negotiated at this time.
If New Co emerges sour for LTHs of course and assuming it is not taken private, a definite opportunity?

I take your point Hex about the 2019 position being in a similar vein and I would agree with that except short term loans look to have increased by 25% and lease obligations up by 70%. Is that kind of pressure sustainable?
Note also, this is just the liquidity (short term) position, it is not testing the solvency (long term) of the business.
We will know soon enough.

Cineplex would not have "ceased to exist" before their assets were hived-up to CW.
Such is the nature of all acquisitions.
CW stood to gain, hence why they were prepared to pay a 40 per cent premium for all of the share capital of CP.
In return, CP were prepared to accept that offer based upon certain assumptions negotiated by their investment bankers and `magic circle` law firm.
But it is possible, that Goldman Sachs and Slaughter and May, they got it all wrong.
And you got it right.
If so I will be asking u for tips on the 2.30 at Haydock park tomorrow :))

"4.25c per share Dividends were being paid to comfortably to 1.4bn shareholders??, what would that equate to on the company balance sheet, annually?"
Well, I think the dividend payments would be indicated in the finance section of the cash flow statement and netted out of earnings reported as retained earnings on the balance sheet.
But speaking frankly, historical dividends are neither here nor there in the present circumstances. CW are facing short term liquidity crisis notwithstanding the long term solvency challenges.
Hex:
It`s 1 billion gap, mi amigo, not 1 million. (I hear your arguments however they are noted, with thanks.)

` “forecasted/ projected cash flow” coming in per month` is not an item on the balance sheet.
Nor is it an item on the P&L nor the cash flow statement.
I`m not in the business of speculating, just analysing CWs own numbers.
You may of course be right and I hope so: CINE has been good to me the last few years as I have traded it, I love Cinema, I don`t love this management team (but that is not relevant).
Look at the cash balances year to year and this reconciles to the CFS and then map to cash out. They have made adjustments which appear well quite odd, but I say this not to crow but to try to put some balance on this BB. The day traders are happy. The LTHs are feeling the pain. We all know that feeling. And I support all of you.
GL