Member Info for Wellington99

Well said @bullsbears.
The only question is if his "out" is better for him to shaft the current shareholders and start afresh by earning equity in NewCo.

Tell you what Bonkers, I wish the cinemas were as full as my filter list!
It's been a bounteous crop of new entrants over the last few days.

@Bonkers0801
Since Cine became a penny stock this board has become like a zoo.
I say that becuase a zoo is the only other place where you can find so many different types of ****.

"bare minimum needed to keep the lights on"
Naughty.
The $1.9bn was an attempt to get paid 20% for finance that had already been provided and jostle for position up the waterfall.
The judge saw through that and prevented it.

https://celluloidjunkie.com/2022/10/07/cineworld-on-its-road-to-recovery-part-3/
This is to financial analysis what Jennifer Aniston is to trichological biochemistry.
BTW, loved the recent posts with @Poorinvester and @WolfofWarks.
Wolf is a 'Midwit' who takes the party line that every bit of news shows that the whole thing is disastrous and going to hell in a handcart. The archetypical Radio 4 Today listener/ Times reader and a classic case of Dunning-Kruger. He can do the mathematics and thinks in a straight line, but anything genuinely contrarian is dismissed as heresy. Doomed to be forever behind the curve. Wrong for all the right reasons.
Poor is a cretin who doesn’t understand the basics of corporate finance. God alone knows why he isn’t bankrupt already although I suspect that the base level of animal cunning means he comes out alright in the end. I suspect that he will prosper on this one. He will be right for all the wrong reasons.

Poor is a cretin who can't understand the basics of corprate finance (or grammar) but will probably come up trumps

He probably is the right person to run Cine V2 (especially if he is highly incentivised) and he is very close to the lenders but that's not how it would be presented.
Remember, they awarded themselves very high salaries and a massive incentive scheme when it looked like the SP might bounce. (approved by shareholders through their grited teeth)

@patience
I'm afraid that that is all too easy to imagine and is the most likely option.
Current stockholders get wiped out and Mooky & Israel get hired to run the new company with substantial stock options if they hit certain targets. They get their equity (not all of it) back for their role as managers not capital providers.

@Wolf
No, you aren't an auditor.
I don't know what you are, but an honest broker or seeker after truth you are not.
The 31 Dec 2021 accounts were signed off on a similar basis, with the judgement handed down extant.
What has changed in the case between now and then makes you want to provide for that particular contingent liability?
Pick one: Fool or Knave.

@Wolf
Prince William had an affair.
He is in the doghouse.
I've asked Kate to have a dirty weekend in Brighton.
That just shows you how much power Prince William has now if there is any truth behind this.

Try and apply some critical thinking.

I'm not valuing it. This is all rumours, but having someone (even Cineplex) as a potential buyer of a large chunk of the business is helpful.
Besides, given that the court awarded Cineplex all the benefit of the synergies it seems sensible that they get to enjoy them!

Or it could be that the Regal part is sold to Cineplex for stock in Cineplex with some of the debt stapled to it and then Cineworld is left as the rump either with a DfE, or with just some of the debt or a full liquidation.

Depends what the remainder of Cineworld is left with and how much debt it is saddled with.

@HNS_77
I'm a bit more bearish on this news as it suggests to me that they will go for a NewCo with the Greidinger boys getting some of their stake back as sweat equity: hit these targets, get X% etc. Why bother defending a claim when it will expire when the current entity gets canned?
It's always been my concern that common stock holders would get thrown under the bus to save the family's interests, and given that they are very tight with the debt providers, you can see how this plays out.

The litigation is between two Canadian companies and a British company. I know that the US loves the idea of extra-territorial jurisdiction but I don't see how a US court can tell foreign companies whether to proceed with a court case or not, unless there is some international provision to recognise a US Chapter 11 in other jurisdictions or it's covered via contract.

Perhaps Cineworld want to get the deal in virtually final form and force Cineplex to accept (say) 10 cents on the dollar or else they blow the whole deal up?

I find Hexam's stuff very useful, unbiased and well researched.
Only a fool who didn't want to know the facts would filter them.

Sub 3p! FFS

Bulls will be bulls and bears will be bears!
On the matter of the DIP loan, I am heartened by what the judge has done *and* the motives behind what the lenders have tried to do.
The loan has a 20% coupon rate, and so the lenders (scenting blood) tried to foist Cineworld with more new debt than it needed (to continue as a going concern) so as to put the “new” lenders up the queue and earn a very fat fee by doing so. So far so normal. However, the judge prevented that, cutting the total by c60%.
To my simple eyes, these facts tell me two things:
1) The lenders obviously want to maximise their position in the event of a full blown liquidation, but they can also see a situation whereby they might not get to run the table and so want to make as much money now through usurious fees/ interest as possible before the world changes. Sure, if you can make money now from ‘fees’ you would do so, but I detect a scintilla of (desperation is the wrong word) doubt which means that they want to make as much money now as possible because this power dynamic will not last; and
2) The judge is no fool, and can see what the creditors are trying to do (maximise their position whilst the other stakeholders are on the back foot), and so I think we have an honest broker who may we see through the current problems and realise that it is a *liquidity* crisis rather than a *solvency* crisis. The treatment of stockholders in such a scenario is very different.
Personally, I think if this was trading between 15p and 20p, that would better reflect the position and I wouldn’t be a buyer, but at sub 2p I reckon that (with the information available) this is overdone and I have added to my position.

20% coupon is the main takeaway

UK in a recession, always bound to hit retail focussed property. It'll come good, but probably need to wait another 18 months to two years for the strategy to pay off.

I think that the bigger learning point is that there is a difference between a fundamentally sound business going through an temporary exogenous shock and one that is just basically knackered.
Cineworld (absent the Cineplex judgement) is the former.