Member Info for WolfofWarks

Togop - CP do not have to buy Regal in the traditional sense. I think the article that was published mentioned issuing CP equity and debt to the CW major lenders. It also mentioned Mooky and Co buying the ROW business if I recall correctly.

Ian - in your scenario how much do you think the company will sell for?

They can't sort Mooky out with his shares - all shares rank pari passu. Ian spouting his usual nonsense.

Togop - Of course it is. I expect it to come out a much more streamlined, debt reduced business.

Tegop - bankruptcy does not mean the same as liquidation. That's the issue here that you and many fail to understand. So the company can be bankrupt, that is run out of cash and under bankruptcy proceeding, like what is happening here. It's chapter 11 of the bankruptcy code. It doesn't mean the company is finished. C7 would have the aim of liquidation, not recovery.

The sad thing is all this can be confirmed with the most basic of research.

So when you make this statement "I have been there Elvis. To wolf, there is no difference with c11 and c7." you are either lying or don't quite have a decent grasp of either the situation or the crux of my view.

The people who are spinning are those that think this is going to be £2 by Christmas, etc, etc, or misunderstand what is going on here but ramping or those that claim that the company stating the possibility of major dilution or wipeout is simply a rse covering legalise.

Absolute nonsense. I've said many times that I fully expect the company to continue, just under a Newco.

Elvis - you do realise the company is bankrupt though right and currently going through bankruptcy proceedings? If you have any doubts over the content of the RNS read Israel's opening statement to the court and you'll see a blow by blow account of the mess the company is in and how they got there.

By the way I wasn't trying to claim there was any correlation between the going concern statement and the writing down of goodwill.

I also have no idea why GS is mentioned but they are obviously one of the biggest investment banks in the world so could be mentioned or involved in this process for a whole host of reasons.

I think the big unknown here is how well the company is trading as to whether there is any underlying value that might be recovered if we ever go back to a 'normal' relationship with Russia.

From what I can remember from the last update the trading was being frustrated by the sanctions but was still operational. It did have some pre war earrings and also wild currency fluctuations so I think the next update should give a much more clear picture of where things currently lie.

'Wolff, a bit amateurish if I may say so on the accounts comments.'

In what respect?

They should be carrying out impairment reviews on the goodwill, I'm not too sure if it's been written down since COVID, or maybe not if there is a decent prospect of the business returning, They didn't feel the CP judgement warranted providing for in the accounts in the going concern statement which I didn't think was very prudent.

The IFRS 16 capitalisation due to a change in the accounting rules. Hexam and I don't quite agree on it's relevance though do we :)

Capitalisation of assets is not always about realising value but the first step is to try and write down the cost over its useful life, especially when looking at internal fit outs, general equipment, fixtures, computers, etc.

Plus it doesn't mean the debt is public debt to be traded on LSE either. Even if you're a limited company you still have to register with LSE if you want to take on most large size corporate debt arrangements, like RCF, ABL, etc.

Hi Elvis - the rating is only in respect of the DIP loan which for the ad-hoc lenders is quite secure as they have first lien. It's not really got anything to do directly with the prospects of the company. Obviously if they were going to go into liquidation and the assets are potentially worth nothing then it would be highly risky. That's very unlikely to happen here though.

This hasn't got anything to do with the RNS really - that situation is much the same until we hear otherwise.

Hi Hexam - I reset my position on them when I saw the say they had in getting the final DIP through and securing $20m worth of payments.

Hi Elvies - moodies are a credit agency for corporate debt, etc. Whenever companies take out large scale corporate finance you have to register it with the LSE (exchange not the BB), this then allows the agencies to place a rating on the debt.
Quite often this debt then get's resold in the background on a secondary market or the banks arrange an offsetting transaction in the background to hedge the risk. The rating helps them form an opinion on the quality of the debt and the likely offsetting and hedging required.

Think of the banking crash in 2008 and how the banks packaged up all the bad loans into CDOs and sold them as an investment product.

"So who do you think holds shares, as reasonable size shareholders, that Mooky can approach beyond his own and the nominees (totalling 33%) that he can, if not already, “act in concert with” - if you get to above 30% you have to make an offer for the lot"

I'm not sure there is anyone particularly that he can broker with. Most of the II money bailed out in the big drop. There was a big Chinese holder and Polaris who sold out. I can see anything that would suggest any other high net worth individuals have a reasonable stake.

I think Mooky's job here is to keep the company running, preserve jobs, etc, and see what % of Newco he can carve out for existing holders.

I still think the maths is very difficult though.

The $4bn lease payment holders are critical for the continuity going forwards. Without them satisfied to a degree that collectively have quite an important say.

What is this telling us Elvis?

Elvis - we could have a really good conversion on all this but you've got to learn to conduct yourself as an adult, otherwise it's a complete waste of time on my part.

HL nominees is an accumulation of all the PI shares held via their platform - so it's not a substantial amount that could be added to make a controlling % - all of the PIs in the make up have their own individual voting entitlements.

It is Ian Harding who is convinced HSBC are a major lender. I cannot find any evidence of this, I've not seen them named in any of the documents and the only referenced we have found regarding them in when they underwrote one of loan deals. They have not been mentioned in any of this. There are loads of posts on this going back.

Some of the subjects you are bringing up have been done to death on here. For example like Hexam has said that market screener site has glaring errors in it which do not tie up with TR-1s nor the controlling interests in the original court filing with laid down that Mooky and family are the only substantial shareholder with 20%.

You also keep putting words in my mouth. I have not said you are not an accountant/laywer. I'm just pointing out that you claim to be in that arena but then are making some pretty amateur assumptions or not using your professional logic. For example the ad-hoc loans are the funds provided by the DIP consortium. It's a one-off financing to allow the company to continue through the C11 process. Point c) on page 4 of the link you have posted confirms this.

(c) engaging with the Ad Hoc Term Loan Group to obtain debtor-in-possession financing that is critical to ensuring uninterrupted business operations and sufficient funding for these chapter 11 cases;

Regarding the loans and liabilities. I believe we are roughly $5bn at the point of the C11, with around $4bn of lease liabilities. The $1.9bn was awareded at the start of the C11 process but $1bn of the funds repaid some of the primer loans and $300 m cleared down ROW debt. So the additional loans net off to around $600m taking the DIP into account.

"No doubt Wolff will tell us tomorrow, as he knows EVERYTHING, more than the Company or the Court Process it seems"

This part is just damn stupid. My whole position is based on information told to us either by the company or within the court dockets, presentation, etc. Stop being a child seriously.

From what I recall they have so far written off their investment in accounting terms only.

I think they relinquished the board positions which rendered their stake worthless in accounting terms as they gave up their say in decision making and effectively the control they could exercise.

Hexam - I was just about to say the same thing myself.\

They are probably testing the demand.