We could not find any results for:
Make sure your spelling is correct or try broadening your search.
Register to chat with like-minded investors on our interactive forums.
| Share Name | Share Symbol | Market | Stock Type |
|---|---|---|---|
| Burford Capital Limited | BUR | London | Ordinary Share |
| Price Change | Price Change % | Share Price | Last Trade
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| -10.00 | -0.92% | 1,073.00 | 09:35:36 |
| Open Price | Low Price | High Price | Close Price | Previous Close |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1,053.00 | 1,053.00 | 1,080.00 | 1,083.00 |
| Industry Sector |
|---|
| EQUITY INVESTMENT INSTRUMENTS |
| Top Posts |
|---|
Posted at 08/11/2024 15:57 by extrader Burford Capital Open to Argentine Bonds for $16 Billion JudgmentKevin Simauchi and Jonathan Gilbert Fri, November 8, 2024 at 9:08 AM EST 3 min read (Bloomberg) -- Investors who won a $16 billion judgment against Argentina over its nationalization of energy firm YPF SA more than a decade ago are open to receiving payment in bonds instead of cash, according to people familiar with the matter. Burford Capital, a litigation funder that’s the biggest stakeholder in the case, would accept sovereign bonds or other marketable securities, considering the Argentine central bank’s depleted foreign reserves, the people noted, asking not to be identified because the discussions are private. It acquired rights to the lawsuit in 2015 for $16.6 million from former YPF shareholders and stands to make at least $6.2 billion if the full judgment is paid. The fund’s more flexible stance on repayment could mark an olive branch in a dispute that’s dragged on Argentina’s attempts to emerge from decades of financial debacles. Talks between Burford representatives and government officials have gone nowhere despite meetings in recent weeks, the people said. The lack of meaningful progress under President Javier Milei, who took office last December, comes more than a year since a US federal judge ruled in Burford’s favor. Argentina’s Economy Ministry and Milei’s chief spokesperson didn’t respond to requests for comment. Milei remarked several months ago on the possibility of selling a “perpetual bond” to pay down the YPF case, but no concrete strategy emerged. The central bank has more liabilities than assets, an impediment to cash payments known as net negative reserves. Wall Street has warmed up to Argentine dollar bonds as Milei implements strict austerity measures while he passed business-friendly reforms through Congress. Sovereign notes, which were deep in distressed territory a year ago, are now the best performers in emerging markets so far in 2024. But Argentina’s history of default on sovereign debt would lend a note of irony to Burford receiving them as payment. In the case most frequently compared to the YPF one, Paul Singer’s Elliott Management sued the Argentine government over its 2001 default and waged a 15-year court fight to collect on sovereign debt it held. Argentina settled with Singer and other investors for $4.7 billion in 2016. The dispute comes against the backdrop of another severe recession in Argentina marked by 200% inflation and Milei’s bid to shore up the nation’s reputation abroad. On top of the YPF case, the libertarian must also manage a $44 billion program with the International Monetary Fund as well as a $1.5 billion case in the UK and payments to the nation’s current bondholders due in January. The lawsuit in US courts stems from Argentina’s seizure of YPF in 2012. US District Judge Loretta Preska ruled in 2023 that the nationalization of YPF violated the company’s bylaws that required the energy firm to make a tender offer to all shareholders. Argentina is appealing Preska’s collection judgment, but failed to post security during the appeal. That led Preska to rule in January that the judgment — the biggest ever ordered by the federal court in Manhattan — was subject to immediate collection, before the appeal is decided. The most recent wrinkle in the case came Wednesday when the US Department of Justice sent Preska a letter asking she not allow Burford and others to seize YPF’s US-listed shares. The Justice Department said allowing a private litigant to seize foreign assets on US soil poses risks to US foreign policy interests and reciprocity abroad. The stakes are high for Argentina not just in this case, but also as a litmus test in Milei’s bid to attract foreign investment. The president’s new reforms meant to bring in large foreign investments specifically allow companies to resolve potential legal disputes outside Argentina should a project go awry there. The case is Petersen Energia Inversora SAU v. Argentine Republic, 15-cv-02739, US District Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan). GLA |
Posted at 07/11/2024 16:15 by djderry Very happy with the results presentation.I felt investors were given greater insight into the three ' fronts' on which Burford is progressing the YPF matter. Acknowledging the business/ political links in Argentina was illuminating.Burford is positioning itself for the negotiation table. |
Posted at 07/11/2024 07:02 by djderry Thanks Extrader.Perhaps if you hear any of Seb's tweets,you might post them up.On first consideration, this seems to strengthen Argentina's case.It seems to me to back up their original position that they are immune from outside interference. Have I missed something? Burford's case,which they have already won,is that,as these were commercial matters,no sovereign immunity exits,all the more so as shares were sold on the NYSE,under NYSE rules to US and other investors. Where does this leave us? |
Posted at 30/10/2024 17:18 by extrader Ashmore's latest :The Autumn IMF meetings present an opportunity for investors to engage with IMF authorities, central bankers, finance ministers, technocrats, political consultants, economist and peers. The state of the global economy and the main risks and opportunities across global markets is the primary focus. This report summarises the main findings of four and a half days and 35-meetings organised by seven different partners in nine different venues. with IMF Chief representatives, Central Bank Governors and Directors, Ministers of Finance, and political consultants. Despite the political challenges, both Angola and Argentina pledged to maintain an overall surplus. Angola’s reforms started some 6-7 years ago, while Argentina’s are more recent, but both countries remain on the right track. The IMF was surprised by the underperformance of its Angolan Eurobonds and re-iterated they would be ready to support the country, should they request the fund’s assistance. In Argentina, there is a consensus that the economy is at important cross-roads. One path sees inflation continuing to decline and economic activity recovering enough for the population to reward President Javier Milei’s party in next year’s mid-term elections, and reforms persisting. On the second path, inflation remains elevated and/or the economy recovery is too shallow, leading to a poor election result and then significant political challenges for reforms. We think Milei’s reforms are already paying dividends in terms of a better investment environment and lower inflation and believe the first path to now be more likely. GLA |
Posted at 18/10/2024 20:55 by galatea99 There is a story here that parties who had previously bought from Burford percentages of the YPF case are now offering to local Argentine companies the opportunity to buy sub.parts. The price seems to be 17% of the total amount recovered in NY.Long article. The first paras: "Los procesos judiciales contra el país tienen un mercado aparte. Parte de la demanda fue cedida por Burford a "inversores" que a su vez ofrecen ahora el 30% de su tenencia Fondos de inversión locales estuvieron recibiendo en las últimas jornadas ofertas para participar del juicio contra la Argentina por la expropiación de YPF dispuesta por el gobierno de Cristina Kirchner y de la mano de Axel Kicillof. El precio: 17% del valor técnico que hoy oscila por encima de los u$s 17 mil millones. Burford Capital cedió a terceros una parte del juicio que encabeza en Nueva York contra el país, los que a su vez están ofreciendo en la plaza local revender un porcentaje de esa demanda." Google Translate: "The legal proceedings against the country have a separate market. Part of the lawsuit was ceded by Burford to "investors" who in turn are now offering 30% of their holdings Local investment funds have been receiving offers in recent days to participate in the lawsuit against Argentina for the expropriation of YPF ordered by the government of Cristina Kirchner and the hand of Axel Kicillof. The price: 17% of the technical value that today oscillates above US$ 17 billion. Burford Capital ceded to third parties a part of the lawsuit that it is leading in New York against the country, who in turn are offering to resell a percentage of that lawsuit in the local market." |
Posted at 02/10/2024 10:37 by time_traveller Down ~25% from the previous results, I think it would merit an update, or something to hang your hat on (or are we to expect another quarter of rubbish cash flow; hope not). Otherwise, it's just a plaything for the shorts, and blows on the wind with sentiment on YPF, deterring investors in the process. |
Posted at 08/8/2024 06:04 by tomtrudgian “Fair valuing” of assets means different things to different people, and it has always existed in some form. Eg writing down of bad debts, depreciation, amortisation etc. IFRS is standard in over 130 countries but differ slightly in each. For litigation assets it was first accepted in an Australian court for IFRS 25 years ago. It is not mandatory for IFRS auditors, but is increasingly fully accepted.BUR wanted it as it enhances their results which on multi year litigation cases like YPF were inevitably very misleading. BUR naturally required fair valuing to be first approved in detail by the SEC, as they knew they would soon have to adopt GAAP. Negotiations with the SEC took a long time, as FV was viewed with understandable suspicion by US and Canadian investors. Their GAAP was rigidly regulatory and less of an “art”. Unsuitable for the then emerging litigation finance companies, previously unknown. There has never been “cash accounting” under either IFRS or GAAP. Debtors, creditors and depreciation etc have always been recognised. |
Posted at 24/7/2024 21:33 by extrader Just in from Seb :BUR's pleadings re YPF : YPF judgment creditors: "That evidence begins with the February 2012 memorandum from Argentine Secretary of Energy Daniel Cameron to Argentina’s appointed member of the YPF board. In that memorandum, Cameron laid out two routes for acquiring control: first, “under the rules of [YPF’s] own bylaws,” which “implies moving forward with a stock tender offer,” or second, through “expropriation YPF judgment creditors: "That inference of causation is confirmed by the April 17, 2012 speech to the Argentine Congress by Axel Kicillof, in his dual role as YPF’s Vice-Intervenor and Argentina’s Secretary of Economic Policy and Development Planning. In that speech—one day after the intervention—K YPF judgment creditors: "Even if Argentina and YPF could somehow avoid their contractual obligations under the Bylaws, they would still remain bound by their equally clear promises in the IPO prospectus and subsequent SEC filings, which deliberately induced massive and concrete reliance on the part of Plaintiffs and other investors." YPF judgment creditors: "YPF not only failed to carry out its promises to investors to police Argentina’s violations, but independently breached the Bylaws by taking actions that the Bylaws expressly prohibited". Strong stuff! GLA |
Posted at 11/6/2024 16:42 by chester9 From Zack'sInvestors in Burford Capital Limited BUR need to pay close attention to the stock based on moves in the options market lately. That is because the Sep 20, 2024 $2.50 Call had some of the highest implied volatility of all equity options today.What is Implied Volatility?Implied volatility shows how much movement the market is expecting in the future. Options with high levels of implied volatility suggest that investors in the underlying stocks are expecting a big move in one direction or the other. It could also mean there is an event coming up soon that may cause a big rally or a huge sell-off. However, implied volatility is only one piece of the puzzle when putting together an options trading strategy.What do the Analysts Think?Clearly, options traders are pricing in a big move for Burford Capital shares, but what is the fundamental picture for the company? Currently, Burford Capital is a Zacks Rank #5 (Strong Sell) in the Financial - Miscellaneous Services industry that ranks in the Top 37% of our Zacks Industry Rank. Over the last 60 days, no analysts have increased their earnings estimates for the current quarter, while one analyst has revised the estimate downward. The net effect has taken our Zacks Consensus Estimate for the current quarter from earnings of 46 cents per share to 39 cents in that period.Given the way analysts feel about Burford Capital right now, this huge implied volatility could mean there's a trade developing. Oftentimes, options traders look for options with high levels of implied volatility to sell premium. This is a strategy many seasoned traders use because it captures decay. At expiration, the hope for these traders is that the underlying stock does not move as much as originally expected. |
Posted at 08/9/2023 18:08 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. |
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
