Four companies which form part of troubled cinema operator Cineworld have had restructuring plans approved by a High Court judge, staving off the threat of administration.
Cine-UK Ltd, Cineworld Cinemas Ltd, Cineworld Cinema Properties Ltd and Cineworld Estates Ltd, which are parts of the UK arm of the world’s second-largest cinema chain, were at risk of entering administration if the restructuring was not approved, the court heard.
The approval means that £16 million of new equity funding from the companies’ indirect parent firm will be released to fund their immediate financial needs, with further funds of up to £35 million also to be made available.
It will also see the four companies renegotiate the leases of some of their more than 100 sites, six of which are now set to close due to being “commercially unviable”.
Mr Justice Miles approved the restructuring on Monday, stating in a written judgment that “the court should exercise its discretion in favour of sanctioning the plans”.
The court in London previously heard that the four companies, which run 101 sites and employ 4,401 staff, form part of a wider group which operates cinemas in 10 countries, including the US under the Regal Cinemas brand.
But their barrister, Tom Smith KC, told the court on Thursday that they are “presently unprofitable” after being “severely adversely impacted” by the Covid-19 pandemic and strikes by screen actors and writers last year.
Mr Smith said the US arm of the chain had provided the UK firms with around 65 million dollars to allow it to keep trading up to the end of June this year, with rent costing £19 million also paid for on the condition that the company would undergo a restructuring.
The barrister continued that the US arm had also agreed to pay £16.7 million in rent due for the three months up to the end of September as there was “no prospect of raising the money from anywhere else”.
Mr Justice Miles also dismissed a bid by the landlords of four sites, the Crown Estate and UK Commercial Property (UKCP), to get an injunction blocking the companies from renegotiating the leases of the sites.
The two bodies said that agreements last year prevented the leases from being renegotiated, with their barrister Ben Shaw KC claiming the restructuring would bring “adverse consequences”.
In a 31-page judgment, Mr Justice Miles said that while the landlords “may well feel aggrieved” about the restructure, the renegotiations last year “did not achieve what was needed to stave off the cashflow shortfall these companies now face” and that they “now face imminent administration, absent the plans”.
But the judge also gave UKCP the green light to appeal against his ruling, stating that the case involved “novel points of legal principle” and that there “is a realistic prospect of an appeal on them succeeding”.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article