We could not find any results for:
Make sure your spelling is correct or try broadening your search.

Trending Now


It looks like you aren't logged in.
Click the button below to log in and view your recent history.

Hot Features

Registration Strip Icon for discussion Register to chat with like-minded investors on our interactive forums.

CINE Cineworld Group Plc

0.00 (0.00%)
Last Updated: 01:00:00
Delayed by 15 minutes
Share Name Share Symbol Market Type Share ISIN Share Description
Cineworld Group Plc LSE:CINE London Ordinary Share GB00B15FWH70 ORD 1P
  Price Change % Change Share Price Shares Traded Last Trade
  0.00 0.00% 0.381 0.00 01:00:00
Bid Price Offer Price High Price Low Price Open Price
Industry Sector Turnover Profit EPS - Basic PE Ratio Market Cap
Last Trade Time Trade Type Trade Size Trade Price Currency
- O 0 0.381 GBX

Cineworld (CINE) Latest News

Cineworld (CINE) Discussions and Chat

Cineworld Forums and Chat

Date Time Title Posts
10/3/202305:10🎸The busking loser 🎸7
22/8/202216:46Where there is a will2

Add a New Thread

Cineworld (CINE) Most Recent Trades

No Trades
Trade Time Trade Price Trade Size Trade Value Trade Type

Cineworld (CINE) Top Chat Posts

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 14/3/2024 09:36 by millennialinvestor
Does Were have time for such things? He is a cineworld share holder waiting for the rise to record highs.
Posted at 14/1/2024 16:00 by jaknife

"Have a question: have a question I’ve read somewhere these shares might start trading again in a year or two but most probably on the NY stock exchange.
Would they automatically be transferred over?"

I've not seen those stories but it would make sense that at some point the various banks etc, that now own the equity in Cineworld, would want to exit.

If "New Cineworld" were listed in the US then you would need to find yourself a broker that could deal with US shares in order to buy them. I would hope that we don't need to explain that the existing shares are worthless and you won't have any shares in "New Cineworld" unless you buy them. If you have a few hours spare then take a read of the "Statement of administrator's proposal", which you can find here:

The punchline for shareholders is at the bottom of page 22 where it notes:

"There is no prospect of a return to the shareholders of the Company."

Note that the wider Cinema sector is still experiencing difficulties, as reported today:

Hollywood strikes force Vue cinema chain into fresh debt restructuring
Vue International is finalising plans for its second debt-for-equity swap in little over a year after the delayed release of a string of blockbusters, Sky News learns.

Cineworld could well be experiencing similar difficulties but we wouldn't know given that Cineworld doesn't publish any financial details now that it's a private company.

In a similar vein the AMC share price has also performed poorly over the last year, despite have its fanatical shareholder base:


Posted at 08/8/2023 22:48 by jaknife

"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!

Posted at 24/7/2023 13:41 by pwhite73
WC104 - "So if they remarketed Cineworld today it would likely be on a lower valuation"

Wrong what the C11 proposals have done is to prevent the CINE share price from recovering in line with the number of blockbusters that have been released and will be released over the coming months. The writers/actors strike only effects films in the making not films already made. On the Barbie and Oppenheimer figures AMC are up 42% today, a rise denied CINE shareholders due to the threat of administration over the next seven days.

An independent valuation will look at the whole package not just where CINE was in September 2022, June 2023 but also where it could be if it were allowed to trade without the shackles attached by the greedy creditors.
Posted at 04/7/2023 17:55 by jaknife

"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.

Posted at 16/6/2023 18:13 by jaknife

1. IT was just released that Mooky and the BOD struck a deal that they collectively
get 35 million to walk away from CINE. Paid by the new co owners.

2. The current valuation of CINE seems to be lower than its true value. (valuation
being argued in court as we speak). The company is worth more.

3. Shareholders deserve something."

1. - Point 1 is irrelevant to the question: Why should shareholders be given anything?

2. - This is your assertion. An employee of PJT Partners presented at the hearing and noted:

A. In his professional opinion the EV valuation for the business is between $2.8bn to $3.4bn.

B. When the business was marketed for sale no price offered achieved this valuation, never mind that they didn't achieve an amount able to repay the creditors.

This evidence was accepted unchallenged. Your man Grama wouldn't even give the name of the person that was going to supposedly provide the valuation report, never mind provide any evidence that the person had the appropriate qualifications to provide such a report. It was frankly shambolic and laughable. You are lucky that the judge is patient and wants to (appropriately) permit full transparency.

3. This is simply a rewording of the question that was proposed. Why? Why do shareholders deserve anything?

"The very people that drove the ship into the grown, get golden parachutes. Then agree to under value the company in order to strike a deal that was not in the best interest of shareholders????"

It's irrelevant to your argument that "the people that drove the ship into the grown" are being paid. They are employees and have negotiated a payment for their services.

Company law requires the directors to agree a deal that is in the best interest of all *stakeholders*. That is what the directors have done.

"Lets say the true CINE value is around 7 billion. This would mean there should be wiggle room to payout shareholders. But we need to prove the current real value of cine."

Why? Why $7bn? Because $7bn isn't enough. The evidence that was presented to the court today was:

"For current equity holders to be in the money and entitled to any recovery, the Debtors estimate their total enterprise value would need to clear an estimated $7.9 billion to $8.6 billion. There is no valuation methodology that would credibly value the Debtors in such a range."


*IF* Cineworld is worth $7bn then you need to explain why, when offered for sale, no one in the world was willing to even pay as much as $2.8bn (the evidence presented to the court today).

Shareholders deserve nothing and that's exactly what they're going to get.

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

"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.

Posted at 04/5/2023 09:04 by jaknife

”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 Cineworld̢۪ profits should return to pre-pandemic levels
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 it̢۪s 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 “support the company in its darkest hour�? The simple act of buying/selling shares provides no direct benefit to the company since not a single penny of that transaction goes directly to CINE. If you think about it and recollect the RNSs that came out during covid there was no rescue rights issue or rescue placing, rather it was the banks that helped Cineworld in its darkest hour by lending them money to provide liquidity. Yet another reason why the banks should be treated better than shareholders in the final reckoning.

”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 it̢۪s 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.

Cineworld share price data is direct from the London Stock Exchange

Your Recent History

Delayed Upgrade Clock