Member Info for Wellington99

The comments about a generous scrip div of 10% really make me chuckle. Unless a significant number of holders opt for the cash alternative, which I doubt, it's just an accounting gimmick to keep the REIT tax status. Only a fool would think it otherwise.
It's the same assets, held by the same people, except there are more shares so everyone is in the same position as before!

Yes, very low liquidity. Anyone who was going to sell has done so long ago and people in it now are likely to be long term holders often with higher book values. Because of the uncertainty over the court case it is pretty much uninvestable for most long only institutions which leaves only day traders and people willing to take a punt.

On these volumes it's so easy for those who want to, to manipulate the price 10%-15% either way for institutional pocket change. Hard to even call it a 'market'.

I doubt that Mooky has the cash to buy any more stock, even if he wanted to. Most of his and his family's wealth is tied up in Cine stock. That's part of the problem - the Board won't countenance a rights issue which would solve the liquidity issue because Mooky & Co can't afford to take up their share, and at these prices would be massively diluted. Hence why we are on a knife edge as the solution that suits them best in the long run is to extend and pretend with the debt and then trade out of the problem.

In the words of Bart Simpson:
"EAT MY SHORTS"

*Ten Green Coffins, hanging on the wall, ten Green Coffins, hanging on the wall, and if one green coffin should accidentally get stopped out, there will be nine Green Coffins hanging on the wall.*

Just block the idiots and don't reply to them. It's not that we aren't aware of Cine's difficulties it's just that repeating the FUD day in, day out is tedious.
Besides, given where the share price is, I think that all the risks now are to the upside and the Court Appeal will be the turning point, albeit the trading update should help.

A debt for equity swap would usually take place if the fundamental business was flawed, whcih is not the case here. I suspect that Mooky will want to try and trade his way out of trouble, thus preserving his percentage ownership of the company although a quicker fix would be a rights issue.
Before making debt holders equity owners of the business (which is not what they want) or entering administration (which would harm both) the Board has a duty to ask current shareholders if they want to provide the needed capital.

So those of you banking on a debt for equity swap or adminstration, you may get your wish, but it will be a long time from now.

Obviously the court case is weighing on the SP - for many institutions it's uninvestable until that is resolved.

If it is resolved in Cineworld's favour, then a lot of people will take a second look and think it's worth a punt. Fundamentally it's a good business with a rubbish capital structure. That's not hard to sort out.

Just looked through my latest copy of Investors' Chronicle and there is a piece entitled "Cinema Recover in Slow Motion" which basically says what we all know that it is taking longer than expected to get back to pre-covid levels.
It does talk about Cineworld in particular and aprt from the court case & appeal it says that

"Analysts are bullish about its underlying performance, sales are forecast to hit £3.1bn in 2022, only £300m behind 2019 while the consensus forecast for operating profit is £573m, once again not far off 2019"

@RS2002 Or another way to look at it - the Covid period added $1.5 bn to debt (c£1.2bn) but the market cap of the equity has fallen by c£3.6bn i.e. three times as much.
If you believe that the business will return to pre-pandemic levels of volume and profitability then something doesn't add up and the current market price is over sold, before taking into account the Cineplex judgement.

Personally I think that the appeal in October will be Cineworld's El Alamein moment.

As Churchill said: "Before Alamein, we never had a victory - after Alamein we never had a defeat"

We are in for a messy four months or so, but after that I think the momentum will be all upwards, assuming tha we get a win (which I would count as still being found at fault for the breach but the level of damages being reduced to the costs of termination which are c$10million IIRC). Personally I would say is that that is highly likely given the perverse way that the judge awarded *all* synergies to Cineplex in a completely novel approach.

This all looks massively overdone from a fundamentals point of view. The main business is sound, profitable and will do well over the next few years. What is a problem is the capital structure which could easily be sorted out via the introduction of new equity capital such as a Rights Issue. That would ease liquidity and put a buffer to the debt. Cineworld used to have a market cap of £4bn and is now less than 10% of that. Even accounting for the losses during Covid AND the damages to Cineplex (which no one seriously think will be paid) thats an *awful* lot of value destruction. I guess that the reason that they haven't sought new capital is because Mooky & Co don't want to be deliuted and can't come up with the cash to maintain their position.

For the record, I don't think Conway is bent, just incompetent.
Her demeanour throughout the trial was of someone over her head.
I have much greater confidence on three judges hearing a case on considerably reduced grounds, aware that the precedent being set could be very dangerous for the health of the Canadian legal and financial system.
Although interesting detective work, I sincerely hope that Cineworld don't try and smear Conway's good name, because if there is a faster way to get the judicial system of Canada to close ranks and protect her and her judgement, then I’m unaware of it.

Hi HNS_77
I think that that would be the decision by the court as to whether to allow the appeal or not, rather than the actual hearing, which would be in line with the original timetable as previously sketched out by other posters.

My only thought is that it's a Balance Sheet ratio thing, perhaps as others have said to do with covenants - if the cash is in escrow, then they can't touch it so it does nothing for liquidity.

I have some experience of Covid claims in the UK and you are on a hiding to nothing on most insurances here - even those that paid out were for small corner shops and limited to £25k.

That said, this is in California, which has frequently led the way in mental legal awards, so fingers crossed that we hit the jackpot!

Sorry, meant
@Wherethereisawil QC

@Wherethereisawil

You should have been on Cineworld's defence team.

I believe it's a bit more complex than that, what with a detailed contract, copious amounts of evidence and much legal precedent, and we'd have ended up with the same result but saved a shedload in legal fees.

Problem with Batman and his bullet proof suit is that I sit through the whole film wondering why they don't just shoot him in the face?

This new Wordle looks pants.

@Funinvestor
I have to say I'm not a fan of Mooky and his family.

Sure, they have done very well for themselves from a humble start and full credit for that.

What concerns me is that the batting order in terms of who benefits from Cineworld's success is:
1) The Greidinger Family Trust
2) Debt holders
3) Equity holders.

Hence the disquiet over the LTIP for current management (i.e. Mooky & Israel)

Sure, if we can hang onto their coat tails, great, but if you believe that there is goal congruence between common stock owners and the Greidingers then you are delusional.

We are simply a source of capital that is convenient to them to achieve their goals and will be thrown under the bus if that is expedient with some kind of pre-pack deal for them.

Caveat emptor