We could not find any results for:
Make sure your spelling is correct or try broadening your search.
Register for Free to get streaming real-time quotes, interactive charts, live options flow, and more.
| Share Name | Share Symbol | Market | Stock Type |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cineworld Group Plc | CINE | London | Ordinary Share |
| Price Change | Price Change % | Share Price | Last Trade
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.00 | 0.00% | 0.381 | 01:00:00 |
| Open Price | Low Price | High Price | Close Price | Previous Close |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.381 | 0.381 |
| Industry Sector |
|---|
| TRAVEL & LEISURE |
| Top Posts |
|---|
Posted at 28/3/2024 08:28 by millennialinvestor WTIW has been slaughtered on CINE, emotionally attached, even now still pumping on about new film releases.Let him rest in peace with his CINE shares. |
Posted at 08/8/2023 22:48 by jaknife Werethereisawil,"The Law should favour the business man who create wealth and employment not the speculators !" I couldn't agree more. But the point is that Mooky Greidinger was himself a speculator rather than a traditional business man. Instead of seeking to constantly improve the product he relied upon financial engineering to build his cinema group and that was ultimately his downfall. Mooky massively over-leveraged the business introducing huge financial risk. The most grotesque example of this were the 2019 sale and lease-backs, which added to Cineworld's leverage. After already leveraging the balance sheet to acquire Regal, Mooky then added to that with the sale and lease-backs and paid a special dividend to shareholders. It was obvious that Cineworld had problems in late 2021 but Mooky tried to tough it out with the banks right to the bitter end. At the AGM on 12 May 2022 the directors presented a heavily caveated set of accounts to shareholders that included a base case scenario for the going concern assumption that the directors must have known, at that point in time, the Company was already failing to meet. Whilst we debated here that it was going to be impossible for Cineworld to meet the June 30th RCF covenant test, Mooky confirmed in his declaration to the court that in May 2022 they were already in discussions with the banks: "Among other things, as of the second quarter of 2022, the Group could not comply with the net leverage covenant ratio set forth in its revolving credit facility and was unable to pay down the facility. Accordingly, in May 2022, certain lenders under the revolving credit facility retained advisors to engage in discussions with the Group and its advisors." Declaration re: Declaration of Israel Greidinger, Deputy Chief Executive Officer of Cineworld Group plc, in Support of the Debtors' Chapter 11 Petitions and First Day Motions [docket 19] Page 14: Had those discussions started before the AGM on 12th May? Mooky hid the commencement of bank discussions from shareholders for months. Shortly after 30 June 2022 CINE's IR team happily answered shareholder questions via email confirming that Cineworld weren't in default as they had a 90 day cure period, which of course meant that Cineworld expected to be in default 90 days after 30 June. Cineworld NEVER RNSd that it expected to fail the 30th June covenants and didn't admit that it was talking to the banks until 17th August: That's about three months after Cineworld actually started talking to the banks. And then just five days later they were forced by "media speculation" to admit that they were actually considering Chapter 11: Mooky is NOT a "business man who created wealth and employment", he's a dangerous speculator that over-leveraged a business and took it to the brink of collapse. Also, in the run up to that, he consistently failed to keep shareholders informed. I am surprised that any Cineworld shareholders is asking for more laws to protect Mooky! JakNife |
Posted at 04/7/2023 17:55 by jaknife tron343,"Are there any legal issues / challenges that can be raised to challenge CINE in the UK courts? Shocked that the USA judge would not even allow a third party valuation." That isn't an accurate summary of the facts. 1. The judge would have happily allowed a third party valuation, however, the issue was that the shareholder group wanted Cineworld to pay $150,000 for that third party valuation. 2. The shareholder group had sent in some rough numbers to justify their wild claim that a third party valuation would produce a figure that was materially higher than the valuation that PJT Partners had produced. However, those rough numbers were fundamentally flawed as they confused pre and post rent EBITDA and then applied the wrong market multiple. 3. PJT Partners had submitted a valuation to the court which complied with all the necessary Daubert rules and had been accepted by all the parties involved including creditors that were going to receive payments of less than 1% of their claim value. 4. PJT Partners' EV valuation for the business was between $2.8bn to $3.4bn. 5. Regardless of the PJT Partners' EV valuation the "Gold Standard" in US Ch 11 cases for valuations is to go to the market and invite bids. The assets of Cineworld were marketed for sale and over 40 bids were received, however, none of those bids came close to PJT's valuation. 6. Cineworld Group's liabilities were of the order of "$7.9 billion to $8.6 billion" as at 16th June. In the circumstances it was perfectly reasonable that: A. The judge accept the PJT valuation, which if anything was on the optimistic side, as evidenced by the fact that no one was prepared to bid an amount that was close to the PJT valuation. B. The judge conclude that Cineworld was "Hopelessly Insolvent" given that the business value would need to more than double before shareholders might get close to getting paid anything. C. The judge denied the right for the shareholder group to form a formal shareholder committee, which would then have been able to have its legal fees met by Cineworld. None of this would have stopped the shareholder group obtaining a third party valuation, it's just that they would have had to pay the $150k to get it themselves. JakNife |
Posted at 28/6/2023 21:16 by pwhite73 Henchard - "Holders of CINE shares will receive some level of return" ... or not?"I have been invested in enough dog companies that have gone into administration to know 99/100 shareholders receive zilch back. My line here has always been this is worth fighting for. In normal UK insolvency cases the company is put into administration first before a rescue package is agreed between the debtor, creditors and sanctioned by the court. Because CINE Plc has filed for C11 in the US everything is back to front. The debtors and creditors have agreed on a rescue package that has been sanctioned by the court and only then is the company put into administration. Some have argued Cross Border Insolvency regulations apply here. Well they don't because CINE is not an overseas company it is registered in the UK. So by filing for administration now CINE is trying to argue it is insolvent when the rescue package is already in place. In order to facilitate this trickery they are moving the assets that have been rescued out of the Plc and into a subsidiary wholly owned by CINE. Then claiming the Plc has no assets only debt and therefore insolvent. That has always been my gripe and why the UK courts should reject the administration application. |
Posted at 27/6/2023 13:15 by pwhite73 loglorry1 - This is essentially a discussion on a disagreement on the way CINE shareholders should be treated as a result of C11.Tell me what it is you want to bet on? If you want to bet that CINE will appoint administrators well that's not a bet because Alixpartners who are insolvency practitioners have been assisting CINE prior to them filing for C11 and their names are on every single docket since September 2022. So the administrators have already been appointed. If you want to bet that CINE will file for administration well that's not a better either because a condition of C11 again known right from the outset and printed in every single docket since September 2022 is that CINE will enact the C11 in the UK through administration. Where we have always differed is the way in which the UK court will treat the application for administration in the light of the C11 process. I don't believe it will sanction it unqualified you do. If that's not your interpretation of this discussion then tell me exactly what it is you want to bet on. |
Posted at 16/6/2023 18:25 by henchard Descent into madness:The Regal acquisition was pure vanity; we're big players, we want a big presence in the home of tinsel town - even if movie going in the US has been in structural decline since the turn of the century, and there are parts of the world where it's actually growing. Approving the Regal deal or hanging on to your shares when it went through was mad. After it was completed, and CINE did a big sale-and-leaseback on the cinemas and paid a ridiculous dividend from the proceeds instead of reducing debt, if you didn't dump your shares (at least after you got the dividend), you were mad. If you approved of CINE's proposed debt-funded acquisition of Cineplex and still held on to your shares, you were madder still. If you held on to your shares when Covid hit, you were completely mad. And if you still hold them today, you're totally certifiable! |
Posted at 07/6/2023 13:51 by millennialinvestor PWhite, how about this explainer for you:Cine starts business. Cine makes money. Cine grows rapidly. Cine share price good. Cine buys other cinemas rapidly and borrowed money. People stop coming to cine. Cine start selling property to boost cash. Cine's monthly expenses rise due to now paying rent. Cine borrows more money. Cine share price declines due to large borrowing. Cine borrows some more money to pay existing creditors. (Epic spiral out of control). Shorters have a party. Cine goes bankrupt as no one want's to lend them another penny. PWhite values cine at 12 billion. JakNife issues PWhite multiple fatal blows to the cranium, PWhites funeral is next week. Millennial & JakNife submit their new sunseeker orders ready for summer cruising the Maldives. |
Posted at 06/6/2023 10:44 by jaknife Werethereisawill,"Will there be a time when dividends are announced on present cine or new co cine ?" No dividends will ever be paid on Cineworld Group PLC ("present cine"). Dividends might be paid on "NewCo Cineworld" but it's too early to make a definitive statement on that matter. "If new co cine starts soon what would the initial share price be ?" There is no intention under the Plan for the shares of NewCo Cineworld to be listed so there will be no public share price. JakNife |
Posted at 04/5/2023 09:04 by jaknife PWhite73,”There does not have to be equity value in the company there need only be the prospect of equity value in the company. This is essentially the shareholders argument and also the creditors argument, that's why they've poured more money into Cineworld and wish to own all future equity. They haven't invested in Cineworld to lose their money.” This is not correct, please see the FAQ: Question 12: 12. If we just wait then Cineworldâ€&tra This is a hopelessly unrealistic request on many levels. At its peak in 2019 Cineworld generated an EBITDA of $1,580 but EBITDA is NOT profit and it’s also not cash! The post-tax profit for 2019 was a mere $190.3m and that was after an exceptional profit from two sale and lease-back transactions. It is simply not reasonable to make banks wait many years in the hope that one day they might possibly recover 100% of their debt when the professional advisers are telling the court that there is $4.5bn too much debt now today. Also re “poured more money into Cineworld” Question 8: 8. But we supported the company in its darkest hour Really? How? By buying shares? How exactly did buying shares “suppor ”The current C11 proposals have been devised in the wake of Covid. That Cineworld made two strategic acquisitions, Cineplex and Regal just before Covid only compounded the matter. All the indicators are that with the studios back in business and blockbusters bringing people back into cinemas the residue of Covid will be over in 12 months. ” This is not correct, see Question 2: 2. But business is improving for Cineworld This is not true and it’s easy to demonstrate. Cineworld has been providing monthly management accounts to the court since it entered Ch 11. The last ones are for the month of February: A. Cineworld UK Debtor Group B. Cineworld US Debtor Group In both cases if you look at "page 16 of 22" then you can see that Cineworld is still massively loss-making and burning cash. JakNife |
Posted at 01/5/2023 13:58 by jaknife PWhite73,”For the last and final time Cineworld has not defaulted on any of its debts and neither is it insolvent. This is a ludicrous sentence. Cineworld has defaulted on every single one of its debts because it has incurred an “Event of Default” on every single one of those debts. It’s almost as if you don’t understand what the words “chapter 11 bankruptcy protection“ actually mean! The very act of entering Ch11 itself will be an Event of Default, albeit a moot one since Ch11 triggers an automatic “stay”, which prevents creditors enforcing their rights. And the idea that Cineworld would be solvent, if left to its own devices, is for the birds. Right from the outset Cineworld has told the world that it needs to de-lever. That’s why the banks have agreed to write-off/swap to equity $4.5bn of debt – because there’s no hope that Cineworld would otherwise be able to repay its debts as they fall due. ”What is happening is that as part of the C11 process US creditors are attempting to put Cineworld into administration or have it restructured in such a way the entire equity is distributed among themselves in a new company. Their argument is if "we don't or hadn't taken the action we did Cineworld would be insolvent".” By way of reminder, Ch11 is a process that a company enters on a voluntary basis in order to protect itself from its creditors – it effectively forces the creditors to negotiate. In September last year Cineworld *voluntarily* entered Ch11: If it hadn’t then it would have been in default as it would have breached the financial covenants on its RCF, which were due to be tested on 30 June 2022. Try reading the last set of accounts and see what it say about covenants and the RCF and you’ll get some background. Part of the problem here PWhite73, is that you’re a Johnny Come Lately in this debate. Issues such as this were discussed six months ago. ”From the constant rubbish you are spouting its obvious you are too young to remember a UK listed company called Colt Telecom Plc although it never filed for C11 its case is not too dissimilar from what I have stated. A US hedge fund attempted exactly the same thing back in the early 2000s on the grounds Colt would be unable to meet its future debts without further creditor financing. The High Court rejected the claim for an administration order although administrators had already been appointed by the lenders. One of the grounds on which the High Court rejected the claim was that a public listing was one of the means in which a company can finance itself. As Colt was not in default of any of its loans it should not be denied this facility. "Bid to put Colt Telecom into administration defeated" "20 December 2002 Telecoms company Colt has today beaten off an audacious High Court challenge from an aggressive American hedge fund to have it put into administration. "New York-based Highberry Group had claimed that Colt was haemorrhaging cash at such a rate that the company would go bankrupt within two years. Instead, it should be put into administration and the debt burden reduced by means of a debt-for-equity swap, argued Highberry. However, Colt successfully counter-argued that this represented little more than a cynical ploy by Highberry to take an equity stake in Colt at a discount and at the expense of the company’s battered stockholders, who would be left with almost nothing." Should you wish to take the time and do some proper research below is the case reference. Re Colt Telecom Group plc [2002] EWHC (Ch) 2815” FWIW the bank that I worked at, at that time, was a lender into the Colt Telecom term loan/RCF and this issue was covered by my desk, albeit by someone sitting on the next desk but one. But the obvious point that you have completely failed to grasp is that a hedge fund was trying to *force* Ch11 upon Colt Telecom and Colt resisted. However, in the Cineworld case, Cineworld has, of its own volition, voluntarily decided to enter Ch11. There is no question of Cineworld seeking to resist and, six months after it entered Ch11, there is still no one fighting against the Ch11 being used in ANY court in the UK. We clearly disagree. I disagree based on my 23 years of investment banking experience where I was involved in numerous complex restructurings in multiple jurisdictions, I also disagree after having been involved here shorting Cineworld since c. June 202 and being intimately familiar with Cineworld’ accounts. You disagree because you’re disagreeable and, after landing here a short while ago and not having properly read or researched ANY of the background detail. FFS you’re incorrectly quoting a 2002 legal case even though that’s four years before the Cross-Border Insolvency regulations were introduced, which specifically set out the circumstances when Ch11 might be used in the UK! Even if your point re Colt Telecom were correct then obviously the 2006 regulations supersede! Since we disagree, and every time that you post I’m able to post quite simple refutations (eg Colt Telecom fought against Ch11 being forced upon it but Cineworld voluntarily entered the process), I suggest that you stop aiming posts in my direction. If you just sit quietly and wait then any day soon you will find that Cineworld and the creditors sign the Restructuring Support Agreement (RSA) and Cineworld Group PLC WILL be put into administration. As I have already said, for some people, like you, the stock market happens to you; but the skill in investing is to understand in advance what is going to happen so that you can position accordingly! JakNife |
It looks like you are not logged in. Click the button below to log in and keep track of your recent history.
Support: +44 (0) 203 8794 460 | support@advfn.com
By accessing the services available at ADVFN you are agreeing to be bound by ADVFN's Terms & Conditions
Hot Features
Premium
