Member Info for WolfofWarks

It was a joke my friend :)

‘ always take Wolf's howling with a (big) grain of salt...’

Yes far better to read a load of posts that are not factually correct :)

Especially on a thread where you are all contemplating taking the BOD to court.

Mooky’s probably pi ssing himself over his corn flakes.

RI - the family trusts are a holding company structure so it is a corporate loan. It’s not to the company though.

It’s nothing to do with CW. It’s their personal financial set up. If you read the FT article it states that it refinanced the existing loans they had within that structure.

The $213m convertible bond is owed to BNY Melon who are on the unsecured creditors list, not sandgrove.

'Yes I saw that report in the FT.

What is also odd and concerning is Sand Grove seem to be shorting CW too despite having lent them money.'

Who knows what the hell is going on!'

Hi Bullbears - that's probably a partial hedge hedge against them not paying the loans back.

Shorting isn't always evil. Sometimes its big boys hedging their exposure to other long positions to reduce their risk.

The money was provided to the Mooky family trusts GCT and was refinancing previous family loans.

It's nothing to do with CW other than Mooky offering up his holding as security.

https://www.ft.com/content/d73682bf-a7fc-446e-a2e3-a503fdf56bd0

HNS - that statement leads to them more likely being PI shares. Aggretarting would be the process of consolidating all their individual nominee accounts and if they are PI accounts it's the underlying holder that has the voting control, not the II itself.

If they are individual holdings then they would be nominees for HNW individuals taking a position. All the ins bailed out at the outset of the C11 and it would go against all their governance and risk protocols to risk savers and pension cash in such a high risk punt.

That's not the same as refusing them the right to appoint an auditor though. Evraz can appoint an auditor, they just need to find one that will work for them.

Surely there are Russian auditors? Accounting standards and framework are international.

Plus if there were factories here and jobs at risk I'm sure there would be a special license granted as with the USA.

They are a hedge fund who have/had loans outstanding to their family trusts fixed on their 20% interest.

It was covered by the FT again in September when I think they was an error reporting how many shares the family actually owned.

Opulenta - I think you have this the wrong way round. Audit firms will not want to take on assignments with a sanctioned company as they would be in breach.

The government cannot refuse a company the right to appoint auditors.

'So you are saying the gov could confiscate our shares, bollo**s, which if it ever happened could only be the shares electronically, the company would then cancel the shares, win win for paper cert holders.
Never going to happen.'

I never said that at all. I said the shares of the subsidiaries are the assets of the company, which they are.

I never said anything about your shares which represent an ownership in the plc, not the subsidiaries.

A share in the company is a share in the company, be it electronic or otherwise. If this does ever start trading again do you think you'll be exchanging bits of paper, seriously. The first thing you will need to do is swap them back to electronic with your broker.

That one did make me chuckle I must admit.

RI - I’d imagine they’ll be okay. They’ve got decades of dividends squirrelled away and probably have money invested in all sorts.

Ian - why do you believe that one of the landlords are a first lien lender and where is your evidence of this? The ad hoc lenders are clearly marked on the first day presentation.

The landlords may well have some security - usually a deposit of three months rent on most commercial transactions in the UK - and they may well have some security no top of this but they will not have first lien as they will not be part of the ad hoc group.

These companies are investments funds, hedge funds, private equity, etc. They are finance big boys, not landlords.

I don't see how you can keep peddling the same gossip over and over with no evidence again with little intelligence like you are some fly on the wall. *

* This is not meant as an open goal for replies back to me :)

That's not true.

The shares of the subsidiaries are assets owned by the UK plc.

The UK plc owns everything.

I actually sold them at the back end of last year and had already took profits.

Small company with big ding dong with major customer equals expensive legal case on the horizon.

I’ll go back in though once the picture is a bit clearer as I still think it’s a good opportunity.

'@Hexam,

As RI said, The C11 Group assets will be valued based on cash flow, assets, etc. 6B is not far off. 6b will pay off thr ROW Loan.

Also i am not sure how much haircut everyone is willing to take.'

Tegop - The company have confirmed that no one is offering anywhere near that and of the offers they have had none have been all cash.

Hexam - I think at the point of the sale RNS we all thought that US and USA would be sold and that ROW would remain and let Mooky keep the legacy business.

I think if they had an offer of $6bn plus for the C11 group then that may well have been the case. To me now it looks like possibly assets sale (more likely ROW) and then D4E for whatever is left which will mean significant haircut on the debt and therefore no agreement from lenders for equity interests and pennies in the pound for unsecured creditors.

I very much hope I am wrong too. Just can't see it - I've said it before but the maths just doesn't work.

I don't link doing this RI but there is a lot here so I am going to break it down bit by bit.

'The RNS made it clear if the U.K. and US operations were sold, there would be a loss for creditors taking a haircut and of course no remaining equity for shareholders of the PLC for THOSE ASSETS (read: U.K., US). '

Your shares are not divisible between different parts of the group.

'Whilst the shares are held in Plc and will still have value of the RoW business now debt free, you also need to appreciate that Cineworld cleared the debt of RoW and will move the equity in that division into a new company.'

The ROW business from a Plc perspective is not debt free. They have just moved the debt form the ROW Group to the DIP. As a shareholder you still have the same debt albeit it now under DIP terms. They have moved the ROW into a new group but the Plc is still the ultimate owner of the that group.

'You keep referring to a sale which COULD include RoW but I fail to see this.

Why would Cineworld look to sell it off when it is outside chapter 11? It is not a fire sale or distress sell to raise capital because they received DIP financing which allowed them to stem the immediate cash flow issue and in doing so, put the U.K. and US assets as collateral.'

It is a fire sale and a company in distress. These are bankruptcy proceedings and the potential sales are in order to clear down debt which the company cannot afford to service. The DIP financing is a lifeline while the C11 runs it's course and it gave the ad hoc lenders first lien so they are at the front of the queue.

'Finally, beyond the low ball offers received so far, how much is the U.K. and US operations valued at? When Regal cost $4bn in 2018 is it difficult to comprehend that with future projections, the US and U.K. could be valued at $6bn or less?'

On a free cash flow business this group is worth no where near $6bn. It doesn't matter what was paid in the past as investors look forward and value the expected cash flows on that basis. Cinema has not recovered. CW themselves have ruled out Y23 and Y24 as reaching pre-covid levels in the interims so this is now a punt for investors from Y25 onwards.

'Of the creditors want to settle their loans which don’t have a maturity until later, they will need to accept pennies on the pound.'

It doesnt work like that as CW are in breach of their covenants. Who gets what depends on security and their position in terms of liens.

Tegop - none of that states that ROW are off the table, only that due to the geographical complexity they’ll likely need to be further proceeding relating to non-US legislation to see the plan of re-organisation through.

I'm still disappointed that Santa or Sunak haven't stepped in here :)