Cineworld Share Discussion Threads

[werethereisawill] 08/6/2023 09:36

I wonder if PWhite and JakNife will appear in the almost sure cliffhanger of a movie ‘How I saved my family business!’

[pwhite73] 08/6/2023 08:38

JakNife - "(b) everyone expects that Cineworld is going to go into administration on the morning of Thu 29th June immediately following the approval of the Plan the previous evening (afternoon US time)."

Everyone except the London Stock Exchange that is. If Cineworld have a date for example 29/06/2023 they know the company will be placed into administration and the shares suspended then this information should have already been relayed to the London Stock Exchange via the Regulated New Service (RNS) so all markets, investors and traders are aware.

[pwhite73] 08/6/2023 08:23

JakNife - "Where an Issuer extends their accounting period, in the manner that Cineworld has done, then they still have to file interim accounts for the 12 month period."

You are factually incorrect. In the case of VRS and SYME they had actually changed their accounting reference dates. Cineworld has not changed its accounting reference date it has only extended it for one period as a result of the C11 process.

In the examples you have given both VRS and SYME published unaudited interim results within the three months deadline to AVOID SUSPENSION. VRS published its 12 month interims to 31/03/2022 on 12/05/2022. SYME published its 12 month interims to 31/03/2020 on 30/06/2020.

Cineworld has not published its 12 months interims to 31/12/2022 which were due on or by 31/03/2023 and the stock HAS NOT BEEN SUSPENDED.

[lthtrust] 08/6/2023 08:15

Existing Shareholders will get nothing. Not all creditors will be repaid in full. Shareholders hopes are based on the incorrect assumption that cinema admissions are almost at pre-pandemic levels. They are not.

[jaknife] 08/6/2023 01:03

PWhite73,

"JakNife - This is my last word on this subject. There is no interim period to 31/12/2022 that is required to be filed with the LSE or anywhere else. As per records at Companies House the year end to 31/12/2022 has been extended to 30/06/2023."

I'm afraid that you're wrong. Where an Issuer extends their accounting period, in the manner that Cineworld has done, then they still have to file interim accounts for the 12 month period.

For example, here are the interim accounts for the 12 month period that Versarien had to publish when it extended its reporting year by six months:

Interim Results for the twelve months ended 31 March 2022


And similarly, here are the interim accounts for the 12 month period that Supply@Me Capital had to publish when it extended its reporting year by six months:

UNAUDITED SECOND INTERIM CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
FOR THE 12 MONTH PERIOD ENDED 31 MARCH 2020



It's basically an every six month jobbie rule.

But who cares? The interim accounts that Cineworld is now obliged by the DTR to publish are NEVER going to be published because (a) Cineworld have got better things to do with their time than publish pointless accounts, and (b) everyone expects that Cineworld is going to go into administration on the morning of Thu 29th June immediately following the approval of the Plan the previous evening (afternoon US time).

JakNife

[jaknife] 08/6/2023 00:30

PWhite73,

"PS: If you don't know what Exclusivity and Solicitation periods are just ask me and I will explain them to you."

Thank you for your kind offer. Could you please explain why it is of such vital importance that, once the Plan is confirmed on 28 June 2023, then everyone must then wait until the expiration of the Filing Exclusivity Period and the Solicitation Exclusivity Period?

Why, for example, couldn't the UK plc be placed into pre-pack administration on the morning of Thursday 29th June?

Surely an "Exclusivity Period" is simply a maximum period that's granted during which Cineworld has the exclusive right to put forward its own Plan to the court without competing Plans being advanced?

And if all the creditors have agreed to Cineworld's Plan then who exactly is there that wants to file a competing Plan once the "Exclusivity Period" ends? Do you really think that once the Plan has been signed off by Cineworld and ALL of the creditors and then approved by the judge on 28th June that everyone has to wait until October 3, 2023? Even though it's clear that there won't be any competing Plan? Please elaborate in detail.

Thanks in advance for the explanation.

JakNife

[pwhite73] 08/6/2023 00:13

JakNife - This is my last word on this subject. There is no interim period to 31/12/2022 that is required to be filed with the LSE or anywhere else. As per records at Companies House the year end to 31/12/2022 has been extended to 30/06/2023.

[jaknife] 08/6/2023 00:06

PWhite73,

=====================
JakNife - "The accounts that are due as at 31 Dec 2022 are interim accounts for the purposes of reporting to the London Stock Exchange."

Another mistake. The interim accounts to 30/06/2022 have already been released as below.

RNS 30/09/2022 - "CINEWORLD GROUP plc Interim Results for the period ended 30 June 2022"

The accounts due 31/12/2022 were the full year audited accounts that have been extended by six months to 30/06/2023 as per Companies House filing records. Again I reiterate its unclear how a valuation could have been put on Cineworld for the purposes of C11 prior to the publication of audited year end accounts.



"3 Apr 2023 Current accounting period extended from 31 December 2022 to 30 June 2023"
=====================

You appear to be confused. The position re accounts is as exactly I have set out in 16,188. In summary:

30 June 2022 Interim accounts for six months Already released 31 Dec 2022 Interim accounts for twelve months Not released, need to be published by 30 June 202330 June 2023 Final accounts for 18 months Not released - how could they be?




1. Interim accounts are accounts that are required by the LSE and can be for a period of other than just six months. Interim accounts do not need to be audited and do not need to be filed at Companies House.

Hence, as I stated in 16,188: The accounts that are due as at 31 Dec 2022 are interim accounts for the purposes of reporting to the London Stock Exchange. They are NOT required to be audited and also don't have to be prepared "under the Companies Act" or filed at Companies House.


2. Final accounts are accounts that are required by both the LSE AND the Companies Act. They need to be published in an RNS and filed at Companies House. The 31 Dec 2022 accounts are NOT final accounts but the 30 June 2023 accounts will be "Final Accounts".

Hence, as I stated in 16,188: The next "audited results" are those for the 18 month period ending 30 June 2023.


re: "Again I reiterate its unclear how a valuation could have been put on Cineworld for the purposes of C11 prior to the publication of audited year end accounts."

Just because you can't imagine how it was done doesn't mean that it couldn't be done. Data was provided to potential bidders who came back with various offers. It has been suggested to me that the maximum bid was $2.25bn, which is so far south of the $6bn+ senior debt that it's plainly obvious that equity is deeply out of the money.

JakNife

[pwhite73] 07/6/2023 23:25

JakNife - "The accounts that are due as at 31 Dec 2022 are interim accounts for the purposes of reporting to the London Stock Exchange."

Another mistake. The interim accounts to 30/06/2022 have already been released as below.

RNS 30/09/2022 - "CINEWORLD GROUP plc Interim Results for the period ended 30 June 2022"

The accounts due 31/12/2022 were the full year audited accounts that have been extended by six months to 30/06/2023 as per Companies House filing records. Again I reiterate its unclear how a valuation could have been put on Cineworld for the purpose of C11 prior to the publication of audited year end accounts.



"3 Apr 2023 Current accounting period extended from 31 December 2022 to 30 June 2023"

[jaknife] 07/6/2023 20:24

PWhite73,

"Weretheresawill - You are correct. It is a criminal offence under the Companes Act 2006 for directors not to publish results. If the audited results are not published then what is the basis for valuing the company under C11."

The accounts that are due as at 31 Dec 2022 are interim accounts for the purposes of reporting to the London Stock Exchange. They are NOT required to be audited and also don't have to be prepared "under the Companies Act" or filed at Companies House.

The next "audited results" are those for the 18 month period ending 30 June 2023.

JakNife

[pwhite73] 07/6/2023 20:18

Weretheresawill - You are correct. It is a criminal offence under the Companes Act 2006 for directors not to publish results. If the audited results are not published then what is the basis for valuing the company under C11.

[jaknife] 07/6/2023 19:50

Werethereisawill,

"Doesn’t the law says they have to be published ?"

The rules of the London Stock Exchange require results to be published within certain deadlines; if they are not then there are consequences, such as suspension of the shares.

JakNife

[werethereisawill] 07/6/2023 19:46

Doesn’t the law says they have to be published ?

[dil 21] 07/6/2023 17:53

Be available to stream a day after it’s released.

That’s the problem.

[werethereisawill] 07/6/2023 17:21

Legally Blonde 3 is on its way !

[werethereisawill] 07/6/2023 16:12

Shareholder employees have definitely supported the business ! And still are !
New co better take heed

[pwhite73] 07/6/2023 15:03

If he's the Cineworld's attorney then he is hardly independent. He's there to put forward the best case for his client.

Slightly off topic I'm going to do a bit of digging later because I'm almost certain in one of the earlier dockets it was proposed the new company would be registered in the UK. We now learn its to be registered in the Cayman Islands out of the reach of UK regulators and authorities.

You see they have to move it away from the UK altogether because they'll never get away with what they're attempting to do over here. They don't need the authority of any UK courts to set up the new registered company in the Cayman Islands. The only issue would be the cinema branches over here. I have argued for some time the creditors are not interested in the UK or ROW branches they're only interested in the US branches in particular Regal.

Re-registering in the Cayman Islands fits in with the plan of Cineworld being split into two where the Plc continues to trade with the UK and ROW branches and creditors own New Cineworld Limited with the US branches.

[jaknife] 07/6/2023 14:55

Just a reminder from the FAQ:

===========
Cineworld attorney Joshua Sussberg told Texas Bankruptcy Court Judge Marvin Isgur at a hearing today that its outreach to 40 potential buyers resulted in “many” offers for the rest-of-world assets and “some strategic interest in the full business” – meaning the entire company. But, he noted, “We did not receive any all-cash bids, and no bid came anywhere near the $6 billion of secured indebtedness that exists on on the company’s balance sheet today.”
===========

It's been suggested to me that the maximum bid was $2.25bn, I am hoping that the final case judgement will confirm that detail.

JakNife

[pwhite73] 07/6/2023 14:46

Yes the judge himself said he couldn't comment on this matter because the marketing and valuation of such assets was not his speciality. In C11 the directors remain in control of their company this is not the case in UK administration.

[monte1] 07/6/2023 14:43

It was marketed. They didn’t receive offers that covered the debt. Do you really think that the Courts did not have oversight of the process and bids received?

[pwhite73] 07/6/2023 14:41

monte1 - "In the case of a business, there is no ultimate guarantor hence the lender can only take possession of the assets that comprise the entire enterprise"

This is correct. However in such cases the administrator or liquidator is an independent valuator of the assets. In Chapter 11 the debtor values their own assets as in this case where a derisory valuation was required to satisfy the creditor demands. This is the complaint made by the shareholders and indeed the unsecured creditors until a comprise was reached with the unsecured creditors.

[voicingdissent] 07/6/2023 14:29

Millstone Investor ignored by EVERYONE

and still banging on the window desperately trying to get someone's attention

[monte1] 07/6/2023 14:28

The other flaw in the mortgage analogy is that the borrower has entered into a agreement with the lender where are they are personally liable for the mortgage debt which is partially secured by the title to the property (that generally representing the lions share of the debt outstanding). In the event of default the lender may foreclose and continue to pursue the borrower for the balance outstanding (or refund any surplus after sale thereto) to the extent that there is a realistic prospect that they have, or will have, realisable assets to cover the shortfall. In the case of a business, there is no ultimate guarantor hence the lender can only take possession of the assets that comprise the entire enterprise - unless you think that the shareholders should put their hand up as guarantors of last resort?