In the end the restructuring came out close to the scenarios we have been calculating, with just {50m more fresh equity than we had assumed and avoiding another coercive super sr. layer, which could have added yet more complexity. While we lend credence to many of the legitimate adjustments in the business plan, we take issue with one or two big assumptions. We have updated our model with the new capital structure and have amended our forecasts for the business segments, but not to reflect the company projections.
We look at the impact of ASDA's Project Future on the H1 results, and we have tweaked our model to reflect our expectations for the second half of the year. We ascertain whether our investment thesis is impacted and any action we should take regarding our position in the name.
As Stonegate have been refinancing, we have updated our analysis of Punch post Q324 results and have analysed the underlying trends that we distil from the reported figures. We weigh the progress we are seeing vs. the financing technicals and conclude what we would do if we ran the company.
Although the headlines have focused on the valuations achieved by Altice International for their Teads segment, the more pertinent question is how the proceeds will be applied. Away from the headline numbers, the structure of the transaction supports our position in the name. If completed, proceeds are not likely until Q1 2025. We outline the options available to the Company, balancing the desire to deleverage versus providing additional liquidity at Altice Luxembourg, the holding Company for Altice International and SFR France.
We acknowledge investors are not distinguishing between Altice International and Altice SFR France, particularly concerning the use of asset sale proceeds.
CPI's structure and governance have come under investor scrutiny in addition to the general malaise in European Real estate. We look at how CPI values its assets and its medium-term plans for LTV to decide how current yields should influence our investment stance. We assess the catalysts that might make us change our investment thesis and the parts of the capital structure that are most promising to us.
The OHLA board has to adjudicate between two offers of cash imminently. We assess the compatibility of the offers, the impact on meeting the March 2025 maturities, and how this impacts our positioning in the SSNs. We also look at how the offers differ and how these differences impact OHLA's access to collateral held by its banks.
Maxeda tracked our expectations closely. Yet in some detailed aspects, we feel we are observing deviations that could be key to our investment rationale. We have rolled the model forward and have reprofiled the assumptions in question to observe how the company develops from here. Keeping an eye on its refinancing hurdle and stakeholder line-up, we feel no need to make any further adjustments yet.
Following our quick reaction last week, we followed up with a detailed calculation that confirmed our early conclusions. Considering the strength of our conviction, but taking into account the thin liquidity in the market, we have made sure to be the first to change our positioning in the name.
We further explore the options available to Altice SFR, conscious of the constraints and the knock- on impacts they have on each set of creditors and the Company itself. The panic following the FY23 numbers in March was not repeated, as the Company declined to host a Q&A as part of their release. This has left the market in limbo but we reiterate our view that in forming an investment decision the underlying performance of Altice SFR is more of a consideration than any sum-of-the- parts deliberation. We expanded our analysis on the overall market, examining recent price movements by both SFR and competitors in the French market and how this will impact profitability and cash flow.
Our analysis is focused on the reasons and drivers underlying GFG's rate of cash burn given the declining growth and losses that the company expects to generate until the bond put date of 15th March 2026. We entertain a break-up scenario, valuation at subsidiary level and a potentia sale of parts of the business. In addition to that, we have assessed the probabilities and alternatives to a par paydown of the convertible bonds and how those would benefit some stake holders over others.
Our initiation focuses on verifying the company's strategy and differentiating between LfL and organic growth. We have played around with our model to gauge a steady state P&L and cashflow profile for the business to gauge its ability to carry the M&A-fueled debt load. Based on that we have decided how we would trade this name for the rest of the year and have taken a (hopefully not too cute) position already.