Cineworld Share Discussion Threads

[loglorry1] 28/6/2023 20:18

Yes after the recap in the Newco they can hire who they want. Personally I think they have popcorn for brains paying Mookey that to hand over the company but that's their choice.

[williamcooper104] 28/6/2023 19:20

The £35m isn't coming out of the bankruptcy estate It's paid from NewCo, likely funded by the rights issue

[pwhite73] 28/6/2023 17:47

Nothing has happened at today's confirmation hearing that anybody who has followed this case didn't expect. Anybody who thought the judge was going wind back 9 months of legal deliberations and £40 million of legal fees was delusion.

I stated right from the outside the challenge should be made in the UK courts for it is in the UK Cineworld is registered not the US. Cineworld initially avoided starting administration in the UK courts for obvious reasons. Had the initial administration taken place in the UK the £35 million for the Greindingers may not have got past the administrators. It may still not. Only in the US can you justify a management changeover involving just three directors at £35 million. It is nothing but a bribe to hand all the assets over to the creditors.

The next phase is the most important.

[henchard] 28/6/2023 17:22

Lawyer White started out with various "claims" about why bears were wrong about CINE shares being worthless. Having seen them demolished, he's now backed into a corner where his last remaining claim is that the UK courts won't sanction the intended restructuring.

[hpcg] 28/6/2023 17:09

RWhites24/7 must be one of the thickest posters ever on ADVFN, and my is that strong competition.

[loglorry1] 28/6/2023 17:03

Where is sugar lumps? Mind you in fariness to him he did say this will now all fail when it gets to the UK courts. As if!

[millennialinvestor] 28/6/2023 16:18

Thought his adobe acrobat was going to crash out lol

[jaknife] 28/6/2023 15:53

More notes:

The judge notes that *even if* the $35m wasn’t paid to Mookie etc then the Absolute Priority rule would mean that that $35m would instead go to creditors as the shareholders are deeply out of the money.

The Legacy Secured Lenders are recovering 3.4% of their claims.

The judge finds that the Plan meets all necessary requirements of the Plan according to law.

* It's an arms-length plan filed in good faith with the aim of securing the business

He notes that he's going to confirm the plan

[millennialinvestor] 28/6/2023 15:53

Hmmmm, me thinks you might be a Jeremy then.

When is PWhite getting you your case of white burgundy?

[jaknife] 28/6/2023 15:45

Notes:

$18m of recoveries expected to be paid to approx. $1.6bn of unsecured creditors

Brian Whittington, an individual shareholder who originally had £10k of shares dials in to object to to the valuation.

The judge calls for the individual shareholder who originally objected to the valuation (Ionut Garma?) but they are not present.

1. The judge notes that there is no question that the witness who gave the original valuation was qualified to do so.
2. The judge states that the valuation report is valid and meets the requirement of Daubert.
3. There was extensive marketing of the assets which proves that the valuation was reasonable and also that the Debtor is Hopelessly Insolvent.
4. The valuation witness is offered for cross-examination but no one chooses to do so.
5. The judge invites objections to the Plan and Mr Whittington questions the fairness of how Mookie/Israel etc are going to be paid $35m between them. It is noted (by Michael Schlapping) that the payment is being made by the NewCo and not by Cineworld plc and that the payment is a fair and equitable to ensure a value maximising outcome for stakeholders. Mookie etc are being paid remuneration to transition the business to a new management team.
6. Mr Whittington throws himself on the mercy of the court and begs that a payment should be made to shareholders noting that $35m split between shareholders would be about 10p per share. It is immoral that Mookie gets anything.

The judge addresses the shareholders collectively and explains that:

A. Companies have a capital structure of equity, bonds, loans, unsecured creditors, etc, etc
B. The law (in the US and most places in the world) says that debt must get repaid first.
C. creditors are losing a lot of money too but the law requires that shareholders lose their investment first. This is the "Absolute Priority" rule.

[millennialinvestor] 28/6/2023 15:13

JakNife is your name Patrick Huffstickler?

[millennialinvestor] 28/6/2023 13:50

Grasping at straws.

[tron343] 28/6/2023 13:38

Another last minute emergency petition was filed with the court yesterday.

hxxps://cases.ra.kroll.com/cineworld/Home-DownloadPDF?id1=MjQzNDAxMw==&id2=-1

Even if this fails, hopefully the UK court system will provide some remedy for shareholders!

Jacknkife - This one is for you!

[werethereisawill] 28/6/2023 09:48

The above Guardian article is typical to what is happening around the country and people are coming out in support of their local cinema .
They keep saying shareholders will be wiped out in support of the creditors but the creditors will need the support of cinema loving customers who many are share holders and they will remember that once bitten twice shy !!

[loglorry1] 28/6/2023 09:20

"duties to stakeholders - an innocuous sounding phrase which is in reality painting a plague cross on your house"

In the world of "RNS Crafting" I see the term "shareholders and stakeholders" used more and more. It obvioiusly really just means "stakeholders" but it's nice to be inclusive ;-)

[pwhite73] 27/6/2023 22:12

Docket 1952 27/06/2023. Its good to see the Shareholder Committee has returned again challenging the judge's statement that Cineworld was 'hopelessly insolvent'. I told you those comments were ill-tempered and he would live to regret them.

[williamcooper104] 27/6/2023 19:25

A long long time ago, in a universe not so far away, the BoD started working for creditors - that's what happens when you first enter into the zone of insolvency - hence you'll hear directors talking about their duties to stakeholders - an innocuous sounding phrase which is in reality painting a plague cross on your house

[loglorry1] 27/6/2023 19:21

The whole point is that equity don't have to give permission because the value breaks in the debt in the capital structure.

Despite paying millions to advisory at a top level it's really not that hard to understand.

1. Value breaks in senior debt as confirmed by the marketing process.
2. Assets moved to newco and capital injected by debtholders along with debts written down to put corp on viable footing.
3. Current equity left holding nothing but liabilities and so is worthless.


All this is perfectly legal and normal. PWhite claims this mechanism is not implementatable and will fail in UK courts. If that's the case then a lot of very well paid lawyers didn't see that coming which is highly unlikely.