We could not find any results for:
Make sure your spelling is correct or try broadening your search.
Register for Free to get streaming real-time quotes, interactive charts, live options flow, and more.
| Share Name | Share Symbol | Market | Stock Type |
|---|---|---|---|
| Burford Capital Limited | BUR | London | Ordinary Share |
| Price Change | Price Change % | Share Price | Last Trade
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18.00 | 1.49% | 1,227.00 | 16:29:44 |
| Open Price | Low Price | High Price | Close Price | Previous Close |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1,212.00 | 1,205.00 | 1,230.00 | 1,227.00 | 1,209.00 |
| Industry Sector |
|---|
| EQUITY INVESTMENT INSTRUMENTS |
| Announcement Date | Type | Currency | Dividend Amount | Ex Date | Record Date | Payment Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 14/03/2024 | Final | USD | 0.0625 | 23/05/2024 | 24/05/2024 | 14/06/2024 |
| 13/09/2023 | Interim | USD | 0.0625 | 09/11/2023 | 10/11/2023 | 07/12/2023 |
| 13/03/2023 | Final | USD | 0.0625 | 25/05/2023 | 26/05/2023 | 16/06/2023 |
| 09/08/2022 | Interim | USD | 0.0625 | 03/11/2022 | 04/11/2022 | 01/12/2022 |
| 29/03/2022 | Final | GBP | 0.049544 | 26/05/2022 | 27/05/2022 | 17/06/2022 |
| 08/09/2021 | Interim | GBP | 0.046663 | 11/11/2021 | 12/11/2021 | 02/12/2021 |
| 17/02/2021 | Final | USD | 0.125 | 27/05/2021 | 28/05/2021 | 18/06/2021 |
| 25/07/2019 | Interim | GBP | 0.032251 | 14/11/2019 | 15/11/2019 | 05/12/2019 |
| Interim | GBP | 0.032251 | 13/11/2019 | 15/11/2019 | 05/12/2019 | |
| 13/03/2019 | Final | GBP | 0.0695 | 23/05/2019 | 24/05/2019 | 14/06/2019 |
| Interim | GBP | 0.0695 | 22/05/2019 | 24/05/2019 | 14/06/2019 |
| Top Posts |
|---|
Posted at 19/4/2024 20:08 by somerset lad Seb has posted.I don't think BUR really wants to take delivery of the expropriated YPF shares. Owning shares in a company in a jurisdiction whose legislature is potentially very hostile to you is a recipe for value destruction. But the application does, very neatly, put ARG's feet to the fire. I suspect BUR was quite happy with Judge Preska's order to publish. If BUR were unhappy they would presumably have asked the Judge to delay the publication date to give them time to consider and pursue a possible appeal. BUR may well have felt that they needed to assert confidentiality for consistency with other applications they may make in future, where they really do want to keep the detail under wraps (to avoid tipping off e.g. other creditors who might want to go after the same assets). |
Posted at 21/3/2024 12:30 by tomtrudgian I agree, TBC, that BUR are fully aware of the points I raised. I was concerned that I may have incorrectly given shareholders the impression that the post judgement interest was still 5.25%.I said BUR is an excellent share, even if the YPF 1.4 billion US dollar value is wholly ignored. I did not say that it should be ignored, or that it has no or little value. It has very great value, but the very high YPF post judgement collection enforcement costs just announced in the results, is steadily reducing the net YPF value. They will conceivably be ineffective in achieving realisations anyway. These costs should therefore now cease in my view. Everytime BUR negotiates it inevitably shows some of the cards it holds. So how do BUR collect value best? By not negotiating, and focusing on non YPF litigation and realisations. Why? Because at some time Argentina will simply HAVE to settle to achieve its dollarisation aims, global trade of its extensive wine, grain, oil, lithium etc products, and IMF credibility. |
Posted at 21/3/2024 09:30 by tomtrudgian Is 5.25% post judgement interest on COMMERCIAL debts low? No, but my point below was that the BUR interest rate on its bonds is approaching double that rate. Further it is simple interest, not compound, and now reduced and reducing as US inflation falls. It is variable, calculated on the average rate of US federal treasury bills in the time since judgement.In short, even if eventually paid in full, the post judgement interest will represent a real loss to BUR, and also there is little incentive for Argentina to pay quickly. Confused? The US consumer post judgement rate for individual debtors is different. It is set by state law, not federal law, and is fixed. For New York it was massively reduced on 30 April 2022 from 9% to 2%. My point below remains that the real value of the YPF judgement, after litigation and collection enforcement costs may already be lower than the fair valued asset value in the FY 2023 results. That is doubtless why BUR have confirmed that the auditors will qualify their audit report in this respect. I remain of the view that BUR is an excellent share to hold, even if YPF is wholly ignored. |
Posted at 15/3/2024 16:04 by tomtrudgian ‘Presumably it’s been passed by the auditors’, says Extrader, referring I assume to the fair valuation of (Burford only, YPF only) Capital Provision Assets (CPAs). This was increased from US 823m in FY22 to 1.372 billion in FY23.No audit. No P&L A/c or balance sheet etc was provided. Instead we got a ludicrously extensive unaudited ‘presentation& The US 549 million CPA asset increase (Burford only, YPF only) in fair value may well be justified or even modest, but it surely dwarfs the other metrics for 2023 so trumpeted in the BUR presentation. No problem. We were told the Burford audited statutory accounts will be published with the Annual Report when submitted to the SEC within 30 days.`I do not expect any changes. However Burford added that the audit report will be qualified. Due both to ‘material weakness’ in internal financial controls, and to a lack of documented evidence of assumptions in the fair valuing of CPAs. As to the latter the auditors are very probably just covering their backsides. However the use of the word ‘material̵ I remain a strong long term shareholder. |
Posted at 15/3/2024 13:50 by lomax99 IC yesterday:Stellar year for Burford Capital Cash receipts are pouring in at the litigation funder Burford Capital (BUR) has had an excellent year. The litigation funder saw realisations jump by 42 per cent to $496mn (£400mn), with courts “back in full swing”. In other words, significantly more of its lawsuits are concluding – and concluding in its favour. Cash generation has also improved, with cash receipts leaping by 49 per cent to $489mn. A lot of recent excitement has centred around a $16bn final judgment against Argentina, relating to the seizure of Argentine oil major YPF in 2012. Even when YPF assets are stripped from the equation, however, Burford’s unrealised and realised gains are still up 67 per cent year on year. The tricky part is knowing what comes next. Increased deployments in recent years and relatively low levels of resolutions could mean that more big gains are just around the corner. Meanwhile, the YPF case could ultimately result in a huge cash injection, assuming Argentina loses its appeal and eventually pays the damages. This is far from guaranteed, however, and during an earnings call analysts questioned whether 2023 was an “outlier on the high side” and asked whether the Covid backlog had temporarily boosted business. More generally, predicting the exact timelines and outcomes of lawsuits remains as tricky as ever – even if Burford says its portfolio is well-diversified in terms of size, client concentration and subject matter. This lack of visibility makes Burford a difficult company to value. The group currently trades on a forward price/earnings ratio of 8.9 versus a five-year average of 7.8, but its valuation has bounced around a great deal in the past couple of years. With analysts forecasting a sizeable drop in revenue and profit next year, we remain on the sidelines. Hold. |
Posted at 22/2/2024 18:21 by tail_risk From Greenhaven Road Q4 Letter:Burford (BUR) The litigation finance company is by definition "playing the long game" as their average case takes almost three years from funding to resolution, but many take significantly longer. As a result, earnings in three years really are being driven by the investments being made today. The two senior managers of Burford each own more than $100M worth of stock. They are building an asset management business. Two of management's priorities with long-term implications are to continue to build out both their data science infrastructure Burford believes that they have the best proprietary data on legal settlements, which improves their case underwriting and thus long-term returns and their customer base. Historically, the "deal pipeline" of cases came from law firms looking to get their legal work paid for by Burford so that clients were more likely to pursue their cases. Increasingly, large companies are coming to Burford with cases as a case financed by Burford allows management to pursue a case without hurting current year earnings and their current year bonuses. Burford is currently working with 2 Fortune 50 companies. Working directly with corporates is going to be important for continuing to grow the litigation financing business. Like the rest of Burford's investor base, I am paying attention to their Argentina YPF case because if and when they can collect their judgement the potential proceeds exceed the market capitalization of the company. The developments with the new Argentinian president are incrementally positive for Burford. We are also tracking several other material cases, including Sysco, and any indications of continued progress on the corporate front. As discussed in our investor presentation (to investors only) that accompanied our last letter, Burford's business is one where power laws can come into play. In general, they earn good returns on average for "meat and potatoes" type cases but have the potential to earn incredible returns on a smaller basket of cases which can have outsized impacts on business valuation. |
Posted at 07/2/2024 13:02 by maddox As I mentioned above, BUR did for a couple of periods report forthcoming case milestone (potential settlement) events that showed that there was indeed far, far greater activity towards case settlement scheduled in H2.Disappointingly, BUR have decided not to continue reporting this very useful non-financial metric. I'd like to suggest that we lobby for this to be reinstated. BUR's objection was that investors kept asking them to put a financial value on impending events - which BUR are not prepared to do. Stupid question to ask IMHO - impossible for BUR to answer. Nevertheless, this is a very useful non-financial metric indicating settlement activity. |
Posted at 29/10/2023 16:22 by three black crows TOP HOLDINGSIn addition to PAR, our other top holdings include Burford Capital (BUR), KKR, APi Group (APG), and Cellebrite (CLBT):Burford Capital (BUR): Burford is a litigation funder that funds legal cases for a portion of the proceeds. The company's downside is limited to the cost of funding a lawsuit, and their upside is limited only by the size of the settlement or jury award. Burford's most successful investment to date has been YPF, where they funded a case against the government of Argentina, which privatized the YPF oil company without providing compensation to shareholders. During the third quarter, a judge in New York ruled in favor of Burford and other YPF claimants in every way possible. Burford's share of the verdict is $6.2B and accruing interest at over $300M per year. This is quite significant relative to Burford's $3B market capitalization, though the market is discounting the award because Argentina has a history of trying to avoid paying.In my opinion, if Burford is going to be successful, a few massive cases like YPF will drive a significant portion of the returns. In venture capital, this dynamic is referred to as Power Law. As the investor Peter Thiel said, the "biggest secret in venture capital is that the best investment in a successful fund equals or outperforms the entire rest of the fund combined." On paper, this has been the case with YPF where Burford has invested a total of $35M to date. Yes, on paper that is a 177 bagger. Burford already sold $7M of their investment for $236M, or more than a 30 bagger. It is likely that Burford will take a discount to collect their $6.2B YPF judgement but, given that their basis is only $28M whatever the discount, the returns should be eye-popping.Over the course of the summer, we spent significant energy looking at other cases that Burford has funded. The company is intentionally opaque and will not discuss individual cases for many reasons, including confidentiality. However, after sifting through thousands of pages of court documents (via the public access resource PACER), Burford presentations, SEC filings, and news media accounts, there is reason to believe that Burford has line of sight to another multibillion-dollar award where collectability is far less of an issue than with YPF. Given the multiple sources and triangulation involved, the presentation of our analysis is far more suited to PowerPoint than a quarterly letter. We will email the presentation to all limited partners next week, but for now, rest assured I believe Burford is worth far more than the $13 per share Mr. Market has ascribed to it |
Posted at 08/9/2023 19:08 by tonysss13 BUR statement outGraphic Exhibit 99.1 8 September 2023 BURFORD CAPITAL STATEMENT ON YPF DAMAGES RULING Court’s Ruling suggests a final judgment of approximately $16 billion against Argentina Burford Capital Limited, the leading global finance and asset management firm focused on law, today releases the following statement in connection with the September 8, 2023 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (the “Ruling” The Ruling follows a prior decision on March 31, 2023 by the Court granting summary judgment on liability against Argentina and setting for an evidentiary hearing questions around the date on which Argentina should have made a tender offer for YPF’s shares and the appropriate rate of pre-judgment interest to be applied. That evidentiary hearing was held on July 26-28, 2023 and the Ruling is the Court’s decision on the issues raised for hearing. The Court decided the issues raised at the hearing in Petersen’s and Eton Park’s (collectively, “Plaintiffs The Court has asked the parties to memorialize the Ruling in a proposed judgment and submit it to the Court, which Petersen and Eton Park will endeavor to do forthwith. We discuss below the computation of potential damages but in round numbers the Court’s Ruling implies a judgment against Argentina of approximately $16 billion. In other words, the Ruling results in a complete win against Argentina at the high end of the possible range of damages. Jonathan Molot, Burford’s Chief Investment Officer who leads Burford’s work on the Case, commented: “We have been pursuing this case since 2015 and it has involved substantial Burford management time along with the dedicated engagement of a team of some of the best lawyers on the planet from multiple law firms and world-class experts (going up against very good lawyers, and winning). Burford is uniquely positioned to pursue these kinds of cases and secure wins for clients and substantial returns for shareholders – not only because of the size and scale of these kinds of cases, but because of the internal and external resources we can uniquely bring to bear. There is no aspect of this case, from strategy to minutiae, that did not involve an experienced Burford team spending many thousands of hours getting to this point. This case represents what Burford is all about and exemplifies the contribution we make to the civil justice system – without us, there would be no justice in this complicated and long-running case for Petersen and Eton Park.” Graphic Christopher Bogart, Burford’s Chief Executive Officer, commented: “In our recent shareholder letter, we referred to the YPF-related assets as one of Burford’s four pillars of value and I’m pleased to see this extraordinary win and the value it could create for our shareholders once we complete the litigation process and collect from Argentina. The Ruling is a major milestone for Burford and we continue to see momentum in our overall portfolio and continued demand for our capital and services.” Introductory matters As is customary in US litigation, the Ruling was released without prior notice to Burford or the parties by its posting on PACER, the publicly available official US federal court site, at 10:45am EDT on September 8, 2023, and was thus public immediately upon release. The Ruling is also available in its entirety on Burford’s IR website at hxxp://investors.bur While Burford offers in this release its views and interpretation of the Ruling, those are qualified in their entirety by the actual text of the Ruling and we caution that investors cannot rely on Burford’s statements in preference to the actual Ruling. In the event of any inconsistency between this release and the text of the actual Ruling, the text of the actual Ruling will prevail and be dispositive. Burford disclaims, to the fullest extent permitted by law, any obligation to update its views and interpretation as the litigation proceeds. Moreover, the Case remains in active litigation and Argentina has declared its intention to appeal any decision; all litigation carries significant risks of uncertainty and unpredictability until final resolution, including the risk of total loss. Finally, Burford is and will continue to be constrained by legal privilege and client confidences in terms of the scope of its ability to speak publicly about the Case or the Ruling. Burford also cautions that there are meaningful remaining risks in the Case, including further proceedings before the Court, appeals, enforcement and collateral litigation in other jurisdictions. Moreover, litigation matters often resolve for considerably less than the amount of any judgment rendered by the courts and to the extent that any settlement or resolution discussions occur in this Case no public communication about those discussions will be possible until their conclusion. The Ruling The Court previously held that (i) the bylaws “on their face, required that the Republic make a tender offer” for Petersen’s and YPF’s shares; (ii) “the Republic failed to make the tender offer”; and (iii) the failure “harmed Plaintiffs because they never received the compensated exit” that the bylaws promised. Indeed, the Court held that “once the Court decides the legal issues, the relatively simple facts in this case will demand a particular outcome” and held that “there is no question of fact as to whether the Republic breached”. Thus, the Court held that “Plaintiffs were damaged by the Republic because Plaintiffs were entitled to receive a tender offer that would have provided them with a compensated exit but did not”. Graphic The Court previously held that the damages to be awarded will consist of the tender offer price under Formula D of the bylaws calculated in US dollars as of a constructive notice date that is 40 days prior to Argentina taking control and triggering the tender offer obligation. The Court said it must decide as a factual matter whether the operative notice date for the calculation is 40 days before April 16, 2012, when the Presidential intervention decree was implemented, or 40 days before May 7, 2012, when the Argentine legislature took follow-up action. In the Ruling, the Court concluded that April 16, 2012 was the appropriate date. The calculation of damages using a notice date that is 40 days before the April 16, 2012 takeover was included in Plaintiffs' publicly filed summary judgment brief and would imply tender offer consideration of approximately $7.5 billion for Petersen and $900 million for Eton Park, before interest. The Court also previously reserved for determination the prejudgment interest rate that would run from the date of the breach in 2012 through the issuance of a final judgment in 2023. The Court accepted that “the commercial rate applied by the Argentine courts is the appropriate measure” and noted that Plaintiffs had pleaded that that rate was “between 6% and 8%”, but “the Court reserves judgment on the precise rate it will utilize”. After the hearing, the Court ultimately applied an 8% rate from May 3, 2012 until the date of the judgment, and thereafter interest will accrue at the applicable US federal rate until payment. Subject to final computations by the parties’ experts, that finding implies interest of approximately $6.8 million for Petersen and $815 million for Eton Park, yielding a total judgment of approximately $14.3 billion for Petersen and $1.7 billion for Eton Park, or $16 billion in total. Investors may find notable the Court’s commentary on Burford’s role in the case: The Court also rejects the Republic’s effort to inject Burford Capital into these proceedings. This remains a case brought by plaintiffs against a defendant for its wrongful conduct towards them, and the relevant question is what the Republic owes Plaintiffs to compensate them for the loss of the use of their money, not what Plaintiffs have done or will do with what they are owed. The Republic owes no more or less because of Burford Capital’s involvement. Furthermore, the Republic pulled the considerable levers available to it as a sovereign to attempt to take what it should have paid for and has since spared no expense in its defense. If Plaintiffs were required to trade a substantial part of their potential recovery to secure the financing necessary to bring their claims, in Petersen’s case because it was driven to bankruptcy, and litigate their claims to conclusion against a powerful sovereign defendant that has behaved in this manner, this is all the more reason to award Plaintiffs the full measure of their damages. Next steps The Court has asked the parties to submit a proposed judgment reflecting the Ruling, which Plaintiffs will endeavor to do promptly. Once that judgment issues, Argentina has indicated its intention to appeal. There is also a process for seeking reconsideration from the District Court of its own ruling, although such motions rarely prevail as they are being made to the same judge who decided the matter originally. Graphic Once the Court issues its final judgment, that judgment will be appealable as of right to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. The Second Circuit presently is taking around a year to resolve appeals once filed, although there is meaningful deviation from that mean. The District Court’s judgment would be enforceable while the appeal is pending unless Argentina posts a bond to secure its performance, which we consider unlikely, or unless a court grants a relatively unusual stay. Following the Second Circuit’s decision, either party can seek review from the Supreme Court of the United States. The Supreme Court accepts cases only on a discretionary basis and we believe the likelihood of it accepting a commercial case of this nature that does not present a contested issue of law is quite low, particularly given that Argentina has already once in this Case unsuccessfully sought Supreme Court review. With an enforceable judgment in hand, Plaintiffs will either need to negotiate a resolution of the matter with Argentina, which would certainly result in what would likely be a substantial discount to the judgment amount in exchange for agreed payment, or engage in an enforcement campaign against Argentina which would likely be of extended duration relying on Burford’s and its advisors’ judgment enforcement expertise. Burford will not provide publicly any information about its enforcement or settlement strategies. Burford’s position Burford has different economic arrangements in each of the Petersen and Eton Park cases. At bottom, on a net basis, we expect that the Burford balance sheet will be entitled to around 35% of any proceeds generated in the Petersen case and around 73% of any proceeds generated in the Eton Park case. In the Petersen case, Burford is entitled by virtue of a financing agreement entered into with the Spanish insolvency receiver of the Petersen bankruptcy estate to 70% of any recovery obtained in the Petersen case. That 70% entitlement is not affected by Burford’s spending on the cases, which is for Burford’s account; it is a simple division of any proceeds. From that 70%, certain entitlements to the law firms involved in the case and other case expenses will need to be paid, reducing that number to around 58%. Burford has, however, sold 38.75% of its entitlement in the Petersen case to third party investors, reducing Burford’s net share of proceeds to around 35% (58% x 61.25%). In the Eton Park case, there is both a funding agreement and a monetization transaction. The net combined impact of those transactions is that Burford would expect to receive around 73% of any proceeds. Burford has not sold any of its Eton Park entitlement. In both Petersen and Eton Park, the numbers above are approximations and will vary somewhat depending on the ultimate level of case costs by the end of the Case, as we expect continued significant spending on the Case. Graphic For further information, please contact: Burford Capital Limited For investor and analyst inquiries: Robert Bailhache, Head of Investor Relations, EMEA and Asia – email +44 (0)20 3530 2023 Jim Ballan, Head of Investor Relations, Americas – email +1 (646) 793 9176 For press inquiries: David Helfenbein, Vice President, Public Relations – email +1 (212) 235 6824 Numis Securities Limited – NOMAD and Joint Broker +44 (0)20 7260 1000 Giles Rolls Charlie Farquhar Jefferies International Limited – Joint Broker +44 (0)20 7029 8000 Graham Davidson Tony White Berenberg – Joint Broker +44 (0)20 3207 7800 Toby Flaux James Thompson Arnav Kapoor About Burford Capital Burford Capital is the leading global finance and asset management firm focused on law. Its businesses include litigation finance and risk management, asset recovery and a wide range of legal finance and advisory activities. Burford is publicly traded on the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE: BUR) and the London Stock Exchange (LSE: BUR), and it works with companies and law firms around the world from its offices in New York, London, Chicago, Washington, DC, Singapore, Dubai, Sydney and Hong Kong. For more information, please visit www.burfordcapital.c This announcement does not constitute an offer to sell or the solicitation of an offer to buy any ordinary shares or other securities of Burford. This announcement does not constitute an offer of any Burford private fund. Burford Capital Investment Management LLC, which acts as the fund manager of all Burford private funds, is registered as an investment adviser with the US Securities and Exchange Commission. The information provided in this announcement is for informational purposes only. Past performance is not indicative of future results. The information contained in this announcement is not, and should not be construed as, an offer to sell or the solicitation of an offer to buy any securities (including, without limitation, interests or shares in any of Burford private funds). Any such offer or solicitation may be made only by means of a final confidential private placement memorandum and other offering documents. Graphic Forward-looking statements This announcement contains “forward-looki Except as required by law, Burford undertakes no obligation to update or revise the forward-looking statements contained in this announcement, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise. |
Posted at 08/9/2023 16:37 by stentorian Every egg a bird!stentorian 31 Jul '23 - 23:02 - 24613 of 24808 Edit "It is crucial to understand the two different positions Burford have amassed in YPF via Petersen and Eton Park. Petersen Burford is funding Petersen’s legal fees in exchange for 70% of the proceeds. Burford is contractually obligated to provide the litigating law firms success fees and other expenses, and Burford therefore expects to retain 58-59% of the gross proceeds. In addition, Burford has over time sold 38.75% of their net entitlement (i.e., 38.75% of the 58-59%, not of the gross proceeds). In exchange for $236 million, retaining 61.25% of their original entitlement for their own book. Thus, Burford should receive just under 36% of Petersen’s gross proceeds (58.5% * 61.25% = 35.8%). Eton Park In the Eton Park case, Burford paid $26 million in exchange for rights to 75% of the proceeds, all of which Burford retains on their own book. Eton Park was a much smaller shareholder than Petersen (4% vs. 25%), but because Burford retains its entire Eton Park entitlement, (4%*75%= 3% / 75% =12%) Burford’s Eton Park entitlement is approximately a quarter of their Petersen net entitlement. (Eton Park gross proceeds = 12% of Petersen gross proceeds [3% / 25% = 12%]. Burford’s entitlement for Eton Park is then 9% of Petersen gross proceeds [12% * 75% = 9%], which is a quarter of the 36% of Petersen gross proceeds that Burford is entitled to from the Petersen proceedings. Jointly For simplicity’s sake, 36% + 9% = 45% of the total of the whole shebang. Sensitivity Analysis based on Damages and Prejudgment Interest as at 31/07/23 In full 16 April 7 May $bn $bn 0% 8,431 4,999 1% 9,383 5,560 2% 10,335 6,122 4% 12,239 7,245 6% 14,142 8,368 8% 16,046 9,491 @45% for BUR 16 April 7 May -------------------L $bn $bn 0% 3,794 2,250 $17.33ps $10.27ps 2,779 ($12.69ps) 1,235 ($5.64ps) 1% 4,442 2,502 $19.28ps $11.43ps 3,207 ($14.65ps) 1,487 ($6.79ps) 2% 4,651 2,755 $21.24ps $12.58ps 3,636 ($16.60ps) 1,740 ($7.95ps) 4% 5,508 3,260 $25.15ps $14.89ps 4,493 ($20.52ps) 2,245 ($10.25ps) 6% 6,364 3,766 $29.06ps $17.20ps 5,349 ($24.43ps) 2,751 ($12.56ps) 8% 7,221 4,271 $32.98ps $19.51ps 6,206 ($28.34ps) 3,256 ($14.87ps) No of shares in Issue = 218,957,218" |
It looks like you are not logged in. Click the button below to log in and keep track of your recent history.
Support: +44 (0) 203 8794 460 | support@advfn.com
By accessing the services available at ADVFN you are agreeing to be bound by ADVFN's Terms & Conditions
Hot Features
Premium
