Member Info for WolfofWarks

It’s funny you know I used to use HSBC share platform (poor you might remember my frustrations with them) and once the vaccine came out they would not let me buy any shares in CINE. At the time their trading guys couldn’t give me a definitive answer as to why this was the case.

Yes agreed

Hexam - I think also the ad hoc group are part of the priming facility so if HSBC are involved it will be something to do with the pre covid borrowing I think.

Exactly Hexam. I think it’s highly unlikely that HSBC itself would own 20% of the company - that would blow all their risk tolerances out of the water. I’m also not familiar with the website, not to say that it isn’t correct. I also don’t understand how someone could own 20% of the company at this stage and there be little coverage of it. That literally puts them a slither behind the family in terms of voting rights and control.

I saw reference to Israel Theatres Ltd having 20% earlier but Sod’s law now cannot find the site, it wasn’t a verifiable source though. Israeli is listed as a director that company though and what would make the family holding 40% so cannot be right. The company and the court filing confirm that the family stake is 20% through the global holding company.

Anyone got access to a Bloomberg terminal!

TFG - where has Kallu gone?

Hi Jeff - that’s interesting as it looks like a nominee account tucked away in Luxembourg. I’ve just had a look on FT and they gave the largest insti being HL with 7.67%.

I’d assume it’s probably a distraction at this point. A poor result as well would make the position here impossibly difficult.

Hi TFG

I was talking ASOS relating to my prior post.

I know they discount but I’ve never had weekly emails with such high %s. It’s usually maybe 10% or 15%.

You can’t tell me I’m wrong without seeing the current balance sheet. I remember the banking crash and how heavily retailers were having to discount then as consumer confidence dropped.

Looking at the BS in the interims they have been heavily increasing stock for well over twelve months, which given the supply chain issues is understandable. As long as they are shifting it.

Anyway not one for the boohoo board.

I think this is one to build up slowly. I’ve bought two tranches which are underwater and biding my time for a third.

Fundamentally strong company that I think is serving the right part of the market for this economy and will no doubt be boosted by the increase in the stamp duty threshold.

I’ve bought a house from PSN as well and they are pretty good damn aggressive on their sales technique, I might have been lucky but it executed flawlessly.

Do HSBC have a large holding them?

It’s possible that BOO is a growth company that doesn’t look like one. The pandemic boost gave the turnover such a boost that its dropped back but is the underlying adjusted turnover still on a growth trajectory, you would have thought so.

It’s the cost pressures that are dogging this at the moment, along with the COL crisis. What I am interested in - is there evidence of consumers trading down to BH which mitigates any less well off folk who may not be buying.

Also ASOS are heavily discounting. I’ve had emails offering up to 30% last weekend, 20% this weekend. Are they struggling or is their inventory too high - I’ve not looked into it? I’ve never bought from BH, I’m certainly not the target market but are they doing the same?

“ More deflections wolf.
That was always the question and always avoided.
Are you honestly sat there now trying to convince folk that the likes of Mooky and hsbc dont have an agenda.Wether good or bad for existing holders.The access to the millions they have and best financial advice they havnt sold down because they didnt see it coming.
My grammar and spelling is not the best but the last 3 yrs has taught me a valuable lesson in that the intellects lack common sense and critical thinking and should be avoided ;-)”

Thanks for the compliment but I’m not an intellect lol. I’m not bothered about spelling and grammar mate.

Firstly, I haven’t seen HBCS mentioned once in all this other than being an advisor/underwriter to the regal acquisition rights issue/finance. I’m sure Mooky has an agenda, the problem is in this scenario is he doesn’t hold a very strong hand. His legal team in the court appearance state that they didn’t have any other willing lenders. I haven’t got a clue what millions the family have, but we know they haven’t ploughed any into the company to try and save it, nor should they. If anything they have awarded themselves very generous pay awards as a time when the company is on its arse.

I don’t believe they could have ‘sold down’ because the FT article at the start of all this referenced filings that suggested the family holding has been used as collateral for their own further borrowing.

These are not defections. I’ve answered your points.

“ For numerous legal reasons. Too many for this board.”

Please do fill us in Ian I’m all ears.

Of course there are benefits to C11. The company will hopefully continue, suppliers get paid, employees keep their jobs, etc, etc. Much preferable to have it go to the wall.

The big question is who owns the company once it's all sorted.

Jeff - You've got me hooked again! They got what they want just not in the exact order they want it. Cineworld told you in the RNS AFTER the first day hearing that the facility is still $1.9bn - please understand this. The lawyers were gobsmacked because by Cine's lawyers own admission they have no other willing lenders. I believe the judge wants the DIPF (AD Hoc) group to be more than the current 52% of lenders that have provided the initial priming facility.

The only lender that I had even heard of before is Investco and that's because I have seen their funds when looking at pensions, etc.

What do you think will happen to the DIP facility if the judge does not release the money for loan repayment? Have you asked yourself the reason why the DIP facility is required to be so large if the operational cash required is only $785m.? Doesn't make sense right?

It's all to do with the conditions attached to the $1.bn loan (remember that this kept the company going during COVID) that makes it difficult and costly to the point that CINE cannot reasonably refinance with another lender until it has gone.

Whether or not the drop in the pound is beneficial depends on how much in the supply chain is payable in dollars. Anything China related will be payable in dollars for instance. So in the case of BOO it depends on how much of the fabric used for the production is sourced from Asia.

This is why despite the FTSE 100 having a global income stream, much in dollars, it's falling on the weak pound because of dollar related imports.

Also during time of economic turbulence investors tend to hide in the dollar which is further strengthening it.

Jeff - My agenda was to address the points you raised on the assumption you were expecting a reply.

You mention bouncing around thoughts and ideas, although really it's only if you agree with them :)

I'll leave it at that as we've obviously reached an impasse.

"Where I agree with you the deal was done to raise the money for dip pre chapter 11 between CW and lenders.Othewise how would they have come up with 1.9b (never disputed the initial figure)."

It's not an initial figure, it is the figure. The court has simply unlocked the first part. As you mentioned earlier it was approved by the court. As I mentioned earlier everything is approved by the court. If you look at the dockets Cine has to apply to the court for every bit of money spent from hereon in while this C11 process is going on. Rent, wages, overheads, etc.

"Heres the kicker
Was the deal done with a gun to Mookys head,according to him they couldnt raise any cash (going concern with cineplex hanging over them).So was D4E chapter 11 the only option on the table at the time "

You have to understand that going concern was an issue long before before the cineplex judgement. Cine has been negotiating with it's creditors for two years now and has narrowly avoided bankruptcy on I think two other occasions. This is why the lenders of the Priming Loan ($1bn) have such power because they have effectively been keeping the company afloat. The only difference now is that Mooky has run out of cash, tried to negotiate D4E which has now resulted in the C11 as a process to get the D4E over the line.

"Or did they along with hsbc etc agree to carve up the company amongst themselves and throw everyone else under the bus where they retain a stake in the company."

HSBC are not behind the adhoc group of lenders providing the priming facility as far as I can see (I posted a presentation earlier this week that actually listed these lenders as Hexam kindly pointed out). Everything on the court dockets suggest Barclays were the broker. If you have a look at the CINE companies house page you will also see Barclays listed in the charges section. Barclays look like they have batched up the debt and sold it to the investors behind the facility.

"Let's face it no one agrees to a deal thats not beneficial to them in some shape or form normally at a cost to others."

When a company runs of out of cash and doesn't have any options they run out of bargaining power, It becomes about trying to strike a deal that gives them somewhere between 0% and x% from the c11 process.

"Now the choice of where they filed and the judge could be a pointer as in hes known to be sympathetic to the lesser mortals in life and showed that on the 1st day."

The judge wants time for as many creditors to come forward as possible and be part of the DIP process - re the comments about stakeholders, as he wants to make sure the business continues, vendors are paid, employees are paid, etc. These are groups CINE also owes money to. It is not some charitable act for the benefit of shareholders.

Jeff - First things first I don't think you're thick, I haven't called you thick and I never would. These court papers have been written by the the foremost lawyers in the land. I get the general gist of what they say but couldn't tell you word for word, phrase for phrase what every part of them means.