Member Info for StanleyPro

@roxy2020, the lenders want to put a lid on cine fast because their plan is under threat.

if my theory is right the lawyers are quickly drafting a new rns which will say that the lenders have decided to delist CINE as soon as their plan is accepted. (It won't)

all letters are important. Of course the above are not formulated in lawyer's language but what I like about those letters is that the shareholders have their say, a counter argument. Every court process should be two sided. Actually, the BoD should be doing this work for all of us, arguing that the company is worth more than current liabilities but in our situation they have surrendered to the lenders. You can speculate if there's a backdoor deal but it seems that the BoD are desperate for CINE equity to become worthless.

would be nice to get some activity back to be able to trade it. I bet if we cross 1p a new RNS will pop up saying that "shareholders get nothing, please stop it" :D the lenders have come up with a brilliant plan to snatch this on the cheap and you're getting in their way.

I disagree, @Hexam. It makes a big difference because we would know the price someone is willing to pay for RoW. If it's 1bn they will have to adjust their plan and the judge may tell them that they need to include a payout for shareholders and/or include share for unsecured lenders. If they keep this information under the carpet this would allow them to get their hands on 100% of RoW by claiming that its valuation is negligible in light of the plan.

"The Group received proposals for the RoW Business from a number of prospective counterparties, however the proposals did not meet the value level required by the Group's lenders."
What level? 100m or 1bn for RoW? If the process is over why not tell us more? There should be a certain transparency level attributed to PLC. It sounds to me like some backdoor deal, best place to watch a Mooky.

more likely for the SP to cross 1p

maidit, just be careful with such statements. Wolf will come and tell you that lenders have "lost billions" and that their money is more important than your money and shareholders got wiped out on fair terms.

"Surely you undetstand this is money they are owed though? You can't just walk away from your mortgage payments right? They have lost plenty of money which is why we have a bankruptcy process in order to try and out them right."

Cineworld has bankruptcy process, not lenders. The lenders have not lost any money, so far they've been on the receiving end. Moreover, the lenders are using company's income to pay the lawyers who are defending their interests. Only the shareholders who helped to buy Regal have got nothing and have not been represented by anyone because we have no money and equity left.

Again, don't get me wrong. I'm not suggesting there's any likely recovery here. Even 5p would be a miracle. With the sort of people in charge your short in cineworld parent is safe:) Short has much better odds than long at the minute.

Wolf, what people like you don't seem to get is that $1bn has never been set in stone and could be easily dismissed because of that judgement being based on wrong assumptions. You're twisting the facts, saying that the lenders had to write off $4.5bn. They're not planning to write anything off - the lenders are intending to swap some debt for cineworld, the company which presumably just had a record weekend post pandemic. D4E is just inconvenient because they have to part with interest and fight for profit but having collected back a good chunk of their loan in interest over the past couple of years already they will take the assets. The lenders have not lost any money so far and have no intention of losing whatever comes on top - they wanted to walk away with $6bn now and after failing to find a buyer it'll take 4-5 years before they get to $6bn.

Wolf, of course they wouldn't. This was my reply about a hypothetical SP recovery level. We'll never see 10p here as some are suggesting because even if their plan is rejected, the mcap is so small that the lenders won't have to pay any sizable one-off compensation. You know it very well that the lenders won't pay anything if possible, I don't see what it has to do with $4.5bn! The mcap was once a couple of $bns and everyone lost money. But they pocketed interest in the meantime and the shareholders have been wiped out.

AMC have also had a record weekend, twitted by Adam Aron.

The only hope remaining for the shareholders is that the judge rejects the plan put forward by the lenders. It can be for many different reasons but if one of the reasons is shareholders then in theory, any compensation amount would depend on how much it costs the lenders to buy the remaining stock and simply cancel it. Anything above 5p looks like a miracle now. Lets be honest, they wouldn't want to spend even 30m. HNS was right to pull the plug at 2p+. What an amazing fold in this cineworld game.

have you read the dockets magmanus? Shareholders are not entitled to vote on anything.

P.S. shareholders get a vote and the lenders are not entitled to vote (deemed to reject)

Tegop, why would they give any money away when they can simply give 0? Shareholders provided funding to buy Regal through equity raise. Lenders also gave a large chunk but when Cineworld has run out of cash, in the RSA their money is more important than your money and the existing shareholders are wiped out.
In every legal case, usually, there are two sides. Here, Cineworld's lawyers are defending lenders' interests. The BoD are in cahoots with the lenders. I don't see the other side that would be defending company's assets, arguing that the business is on the recovery path and would be worth more given time. I can also propose "a Plan" in response where existing holders get the restructured newco and the ad hoc lenders, unfortunately have to walk away with nothing and the interest is wiped out.

there are some people who feel sorry for the lenders, Hexam. They follow this narrative telling us that there was high risk involved and that shareholders should accept such outcome... However, the same counter argument works for the ad hoc group because they knew what they were doing and the risks involved when they lent money to Cineworld. Cineworld ran out of liquidity in August 2022 and since then the lenders have been collecting huge interest, knowing that Cineworld will crumble under the debt pile if they don't compromise and help with new more affordable financing. Probably the lenders have come to an agreement with Mooky and now the plan is to take over the company on the cheap and continue to make more money. Why would they spare any % to the current holders if they can legally get away with giving 0? Regardless of the assets, valuations, performance etc. it's all completely irrelevant imv. Do you think the lenders would have given you anything if the cinema was doing better than it is now? I have serious doubts.

life is tough if the company of the size of cineworld has to pay circa $700m per annum in interest only.

Indeed but my argument was that they're losing large chunk of money due to interest payments. Surely, there are all other expenses to deduct but they're losing money primarily because of interest! Why is this important? Because as soon as lenders take over by implementing their "restructuring Plan" the company will start making profits from day 1. They've had no intention to restructure high interest loans with the DIP and come into agreement with the lenders. Instead, they've repeatedly hammered the stock with help of their lawyers to take over a well functioning business on the cheap.