Member Info for WolfofWarks

If the plan get rejected this becomes a C7. The lenders will never have to pay any compensation to anyone. They are the wronged party here and the c11 process, just like any other bankruptcy process is aimed at making the creditors as whole as possible, while trying to continue the company as a going concern. So anything you think or hope the judge can give you is unlikely because before you there is $1bn unsecured debt that are being asked to share $20m.

I think this is what most of you on here do not get.

Stanley - why on earth would the lenders buy any stock when they are having to write off $4.5bn?

I’ll have some of what you are smoking chief.

Poor - the market cap has no relevance. The minute the vote is cast and the judge signs that paper this company becomes a shell.

‘ P.S. shareholders get a vote and the lenders are not entitled to vote (deemed to reject)’

I found found this bit interesting in that the voting has been set up to assume that certain parties will vote to accept and and decline making the whole vote what looks to me like a formality give the top tiers who are deemed to accept have the majority voting power.

Tegop - the sale emerged iirc before Xmas time when they were looking to sell the whole group. This whole selling only ROW is a relatively recent development when they got no decent offers for wholeco.

Maid - the judge isn't going to sit there and read the whole agreement.

He'll have people do that for him and report back.

Exit first lien is the new finance for the new company, if ROW get's sold the lenders will not have to put as many loans in because the sales proceeds will offset.

RE docket 52 - that's all old news as the DIP is about to be superseded by the RSA. The use of proceeds it is talking about is the proceeds from the DIP, not the sale of the ROW business - at this point we didn't know a sale was even on the cards.

Tegop - sorry it's pages 30 & 31 - 3 & 4 are the numbers at the bottom of the page for that particular Exhibit section.

Tegop - I would urge you if this is your reason for topping up that you read the bottom of page 3 and the top of page 4 of docket 1512. It makes it clear in no uncertain terms that any cash received from ROW sale with be used to reduce the 'Exit First Lien Facility'.

That is, they are using the proceeds from ROW to provide part of the start up finance for the new company moving forward.

'Page 107. The debtors(i.e. the BOD) can assign unrestricted subsidiary as long as it is less than 20% of the EBITDA of the Guarantor.'

What does this mean?

Tegop - when you write something off against tax it's only applicable at the tax rate in the applicable jurisdiction. So they won't receive $4.5bn but say 25% if it was in the UK, bit more complicated in the US and the way their state and federal taxes work. It's a moot point anyway as they will be able to write that amount off regardless - the selling of ROW has no direct bearing on it.

My understanding form the plan is that the proceeds are being used to reduce the starting debt in Newco.

'Another thing. Docket 1510 page 69. New cineworld will not include interest in cineworld parent(our shares) and Cineworld Funding(Jersey).'

This is a given right? hence the wipeout. The jersey company is applicable to the BNY melon loan you mentioned early with is a CLN and therefore bears relation to the current equity and hence is also wiped out as either an unsecured debtor or an existing equity holder if those rights to equity were realised.

Tegop - putting it in the simplest way - why would the lenders allow this to happen when they are having to write off $4.5bn?

Tegop - that wasn't actually what I said. Every subsidiary company has it's own equity but it's owned by the next company uin the chain. The particular equity you own is in the Plc holding company, not in the individual subsidiary. So you share cannot be split up into the component companies it owns. Which is also why once ROW is sold it will pass onto the Ad Hoc group because they are who the Plc is indebted to.

I told you specifically iirc that groups have a parent sibling relationship. What is the significance of the footnote you keep referring to?

Tegop - ROW was never going to be realistically given to the existing shareholders with so much money was owed to the ad hoc lenders, especially when margin wise it appears to be the best part of the business.

Waffen- this isn't a murder trial mate. The judge doesn't decide the outcome, his role is supervisory. It's up to CW and it's lenders to come up with a deal that follows all the due process and ensures that all potential creditor claims against the company have been taken into account. Hence why you get the odd ticket where Bob Smith slipped in xyz theatre and has a personal injury claim, etc, etc, and why at the outset he delayed the $1bn payment that was being used to repay the priming facility.

Hexam - I've been saying that will be the case for yonks. The debtors were never going to write off $4.3bn and let the shareholders walk off with $500m. I don't think the company have probably got the distributable reserves to pay out a dividend in relation to it even if they wanted to.

It was a fantasy from the off.

Giantsquid - I agree when you take out hugh debt you leave yourself wide open to exactly what has happened.

I have had something similar recently with 888 Holdings who piled on debt to buy the UK William Hill shops and I ended up bailing out at a significant loss. If I carried on holding my position would be significantly worse.

Hi Elvis - I don't see what resolution the company would need to put forward. Maybe they need to re-appointment auditors or directors or something like that. The vote regarding the RSA is out of their hands.

The one they have been required to call is procedure and there are no resolutions to vote on.

'They follow this narrative telling us that there was high risk involved and that shareholders should accept such outcome... However, the same counter argument works for the ad hoc group because they knew what they were doing and the risks involved when they lent money to Cineworld.'

This is the thing Stanley when large institutions lend money from day one they are planning for this very scenario, it's all about mitigating their risk. The provisions in the priming facility deal that was put in place during covid practically gave them control from day one of any kind of default because they made it impossible for the company to refinance with other lenders.

So they basically said we'll bail you out during covid but if the recovery doesn't happen you are ours, which is what has subsequently happened.

MIKODX - It happens day in day out the world over. It's usually the structure that's failed but often the underlying fundamentals of the company remain, which is most likely the case here.

So the capital structure pays the price to wipe the slate clean. The comfort you have in buying a share if that you have limited liability up the value of your investment and the wolves are not knocking at your door for the recovery of the assets like if you were self employed or in a partnership.