Member Info for WolfofWarks

In the UK I think there are rules are present values used for payments of settlements. Can’t remember exactly what they were but I remember them causing a kerfuffle. Might have been ten years ago or so. Not that it has any relevance to a case in Canada mind.

Ian depends on the individual premises and what could be achieved with a change of use. My local Vue is just off the town centre and it’s got student accommodation written all over it. If you start looking at city centre properties and spectacularly so in London the landlords hold the power. I assume most of these properties are in decent locations so they’ll be snapped up or ripe for redevelopment.

Those in retail venues, maybe not so much.

Leveraged buyouts rarely plan for the rainy days. No one could have predicted the pandemic though which not only fecked over the cinemas but also gave a boost to their arch nemesis streaming.

One of the first things we did during the pandemic was subscribe to Disney plus for my son. I think if I cancelled it now their would be WW3 in our house.

Poor - once this reaches its conclusion I think it’s going to be a massive learning curve for you on company valuations and leverage.

The business becomes profit making once you remove the debt, hence the debt for equity. I think the point you are not understanding is that the equity is in relation to a new beginning not the current clapped out debt ridden badly run nail bag.

I’d question whether post D4E there might be a new BOD in place as it’s the incumbents highly leveraged empire building that got the company in this mess in the first place.

This is the point Jeff - the whole C11 process has the objective of passing through the D4E. The wipeout isn’t mearly a suggestion by the company but what quite often happens in these C11/admin type situations, the inevitability of a company running out of cash.

The court has the objective of making sure the process is fair on all stakeholders - employees, creditors, customers etc. It doesn’t change the objective of the process though. It has the approval to grant the requests of funds, signing of contracts, etc, but it is up to the company and the creditors to come up with a satisfactory arrangement on which the judge will then sign off once they are happy that all creditors have been heard.

I’m know I’m not wrong Jeff. It’s all in the court docs!

You’ve just got to have a look for yourself.

Yes I’m sure the closing of 20 sites will clear nearly £5bn debt and prevent the dilution …..

Jeff mate - have a look at some of the court docs. Of the £1.9bn £1bn is being held in escrow to pay off part of the earlier loans - this was delayed not prohibited. Bloomberg reported the other day that it will be paid at the end of October. $271mn was paid to ROW lenders for the wiener ship of their debt.

The DIP party are accumulating the debt, or rather the power to have the first and biggest vote on the outcome here.

What we don’t know regarding the $1bn is whether it was dollar for dollar payments or whether the split between lenders is different between the new and old debt, giving an accumulator more power and an exiter less. All depends who wants to be involved in newco.

Who would buy them?

Absolute nonsense Ian. The $1bn is simply a new loan paying off an old loan. The amount of debt remains the same but I guess it stops the loans being cleared from going into default or the new loan replacing the old loan is on more favourable terms to the lender.

One of those lenders is accumulating debt for pole position in these proceedings. Why do think this is?

Absolute cretin.

Can’t believe the CINE CFO is in demand!

The funny thing about syme is the rampers all voted for the creation of billions of extra shares in one of the AGM votes to allow the very CLN that has killed their investment.

Literally turkeys voting for Xmas. I got out at 0.34 but can’t believe how many red flags is swept under the carpet.

It’s literally written the text book for investing red flags.

In bankcrupy proceeding through the directors in the UK lose full control of e company - the administrators take over.

In the US it’s slightly different as the BOD are still allowed to run the company but it’s supervised by the courts. If you have a look through the court docs they have to lodge exactly what they are spending money on and their are various restrictions on them and rights to the lenders. They have to have the courts approve a lot of stuff.

I’m not so sure in bankruptcy they normal rules regarding shareholdings apply otherwise a D4E would never apply.

Everything I have read suggests the DIP lenders and other creditors have control here.

Quiggers - interestingly (or not!) when I was Googling some of the finer details around C11 there was an article I came across from Freshfields I think that stated that the UK is looking to write an alternative to C11 whereby the shareholders have a vote in the outcome as well as the creditors.

I’m not sure how it would work in practise but I guess the principle in that shareholders should be creditors too, albeit at the back of the queue.

Melonhead - Ignore Ian he comes up with some proper corkers and seems to have a hard on for HSBC for some reason.

I’m pretty sure they are not shareholders, well not directly anyway. So not entirely sure what he’s going on about this time …

Hi wellington - many global companies have been though c11 and D4E. It would be like saying the cineplex deal apply because it’s in a Canadian court - it does.

I remember when Hicks and Gillette owned Liverpool FC I’m pretty sure the issues they had at the time all went through the US courts not the UK.

We live in a global world I guess.

If you looks through the court documents this is actually addressed and it's because of the different jurisdictions that they have only included the US, UK and Jersey within the chapter 11. To include the other ROW countries would have make the legal cross border complexities too onerous. It's also the reason the DIP lenders were able to purchase the ROW debt - because Cineworld would have been in default with no C11 protection.

Hi All - I believe it is in fact the creditors who have the vote in a bankruptcy proceeding, dependant on their class and the amount they are owed. I also believe this is why the DIP finance becomes viable because it gives them first lien (Quiggers?).

I believe the role of the trustee of the court is to ensure that everything is above board and all stakeholders are given the chance of representation (hence the $!bn payment delay), but this doesn't translate to power in terms of voting rights and the order of liens.