Member Info for WolfofWarks

Tegop - I’m not so sure it is uncommon. I think folk tend to hang their hats on the more high profile cases where shareholders to get something. I work for a business with 100,000+ credit customers and we take bad debts every week and rarely come out with anything. Interestingly there were just under 22,000 C11 cases filed last year.

Here is quite a good hertz article

https://eu.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2021/06/30/hertz-car-rental-company-emerged-chapter-11-bankruptcy/7820013002/

Hi HNS - Hertz business suddenly become very valuable at the advert of the semi conductor shortage when they were sat on a fleet of 500,000 cars and a used market that went through the roof in terms of both sale and rental.

If you look at how the votes are structured they'd already deemed that the shareholders would vote against and the secured voters will vote for. The rest I feel is a formality.

Then there is the question of the unsecured creditors who are also getting screwed over but ahead in the queue from both a technical and legal standpoint.

I think they don't want it because it's a shell to hold the CLN which is obviously has complications for the current equity that is being wiped out.

Maybe it complicates matters somewhat or they just don't have need for it.

I was having a look down the list of debtor companies to see if there is one that stands out as being Jersey related but it's impossible to tell and doesn't give you the countries they are registered in.

Tegop - There is nothing in that company certainly no screens. It's a shell used to facilitate the convertible bonds.

https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/BR023945

Tegop - I honestly haven't got a clue what you are going on about? I'd be surprised if that company has any assets. I'd expect it's a shell with a whopping great CLN attached. It's the CLN part that makes it not part of the viable Newco group going forward.

Poor - why do you keep banging on about sensationalist journalism? What are you referring to - the court dockets, RNS, etc?

I've got a long history with Poor. I'd certainly dig out out my best fascinator for him.

‘I do not think there is a distinction. Capitalised words have their meaning specified in the Glossary.’

Tegop - I don’t follow. How cannot their not be a distinction between two separate companies?

This plan has been produced in conjunction with the creditors. The ones that have the voting power don’t even have to vote as they are deemed to have accepted.

Tegop - is that jersey company not just the funding vehicle used for the CLN with BNY Melon?

I would have thought the operation business would be wrapped up in its own subsidiary.

Ah yes I just remember we are the same same person :)

There's a heavy one-off non cash impairment charge in there.

Operationally they look very strong.

Hexam I has had a good handle on the situation throughout. I’ve never seen him ramping.

At no point have I ever said CW would be closed and it was and still is bankrupt, hence why it’s in bankruptcy proceedings.

Large retail outlets have been continually closing for the last decade so I’m not entirely sure what you are actually going on about.

‘ Cineworld has bankruptcy process, not lenders. The lenders have not lost any money, so far they've been on the receiving end. Moreover, the lenders are using company's income to pay the lawyers who are defending their interests. Only the shareholders who helped to buy Regal have got nothing and have not been represented by anyone because we have no money and equity left.’

Stanley - this is ridiculous. Cineworld has to apply for bankruptcy protection as it couldn’t meet its obligations and therefore all debts would have been called in. The process moves the power from the BOD to the creditors in order for the assets and liabilities to be safeguarded and realised for the benefit of the parties who the company owes money to. How do you think CW paid for the regal acquisition? It was by taking on debt. The lenders use the companies money to pay lawyers fees because it is the company that has caused all the problems needing constant refinancing culminating in the c11.

The shareholders get nothing because they are at the back of the queue. At this stage I would look up the limited liability attached to owning a share if I was you. Lenders and creditors must be made whole first, that is what a bankruptcy proceeding is all about.

'Wolf, what people like you don't seem to get is that $1bn has never been set in stone and could be easily dismissed because of that judgement being based on wrong assumptions.'

It is set in stone as things stand - it's in the unsecured creditors pool. You can't assume success at appeal, especially given the circumstances in which the deal was walked away from. They have made a claim, as they are allowed to and the judge has accepted in as part of the proceedings.

'You're twisting the facts, saying that the lenders had to write off $4.5bn. They're not planning to write anything off - the lenders are intending to swap some debt for cineworld, the company which presumably just had a record weekend post pandemic.'

They have had to write off $4.5bn though, because that's the shortfall after the repayment of the DIP loan. You can't just forget this fact because it is inconvenient. Those no guarantee that CW will return to profitability and if it does and it becomes a viable business again the lenders will have a chance of making their money back.

I heard the same muttering over Avatar and the dockets show that CW still couldn't turn a profit and the Busby phase forecast shows they do not plan to until 2024. Again inconvenient truths for you.

'D4E is just inconvenient because they have to part with interest and fight for profit but having collected back a good chunk of their loan in interest over the past couple of years already they will take the assets.'

You do not claim part of a loan in interest. Interest is always payable on top of a principle. My understanding is that the DIP finance cleared most of the outstanding interest on the finance (around $300m in fees and finance costs) and we know they have been keeping up to date with interest payments as they are highlighted in the monthly operating reports in the dockets.

'The lenders have not lost any money so far and have no intention of losing whatever comes on top - they wanted to walk away with $6bn now and after failing to find a buyer it'll take 4-5 years before they get to $6bn.'

Surely you undetstand this is money they are owed though? You can't just walk away from your mortgage payments right? They have lost plenty of money which is why we have a bankruptcy process in order to try and out them right.

No it was definitely Poor. Ian was claiming that the DIP $1bn loan was illegal, the loans were held by HSBC and Bank of Israel, Goldman Sachs was loading up massive, the whole company was going to be sold over the course of one weekend, Amazon/Apple/Microsoft/Netflix were enter a bidding war, etc, etc.

That's your whole repatoire there RI.

If all else fails call them a shorter.

My favourite was when he was claiming CW was too big to fail and the UK Gov would step in because Christmas was on the horizon.

...... have taken over the asylum today.

What a bunch of cretinous vultures. It's like trader bingo.

Poor Investor - check
Magnus - check
Maid - check
Sharabel - ?
Antlev - ?

Fig Tree Harry will be back at this rate ....