Burford Capital Share Discussion Threads

[t 34] 23/11/2019 16:21

Smells Quindell .

[djderry] 23/11/2019 10:39

The invitation to long term holders (Post 5400) still stands.Meet up at Ritz,Paris ,2022.

[minerve 2] 23/11/2019 09:54

"I rarely see anyone reading it or talking about it anymore, even on the train into the City in the morning."

That's probably because they are reading it on their smartphones and where you live nobody speaks a common language!

LOL

[gettingrichslow] 23/11/2019 09:11

The FT lost the plot about 5 years ago. It used to be a vital source of high quality information - that is certainly not the case any more. I rarely see anyone reading it or talking about it anymore, even on the train into the City in the morning.

[minerve 2] 22/11/2019 22:29

Burford Special Brew...

For the 'mature' taste, drink before it evaporates.

LOL!

[stockvalue] 22/11/2019 22:11

hxxps://www.modernhealthcare.com/insurance/investors-bet-obamacare-insurers-will-win-court-battle-billions-payment

[winsome] 22/11/2019 13:24

Yes, merely a stalling tactic. Argentina will throw every technical argument into the arena to attempt to kick the can down the road.

[mad foetus] 22/11/2019 06:52

Bogart spoke about moving the case to Argentina: the country's argument is that it should be there as many of the witnesses are in Argentine prisons. The US court has already decided that the US is the proper jurisdiction to hear the case, this application is that Argentina is the most convenient one and I put its chance of success at zero.

[lomax99] 22/11/2019 05:55

Google translate:With the arrival of the new Government, the management of YPF is very likely to be renewed and with it its legal strategy to face three international trials that reveal the company.The Argentine oil company continues to deal with a major problem that shows no signs of wanting to disappear in the short term: its alarming economic exposure to international trials.On December 7, two Spanish companies, Petersen Energía Inversora SAU, Petersen Energía SAU, and an American fund, Eton Park Capital, will present a hard letter in a New York court opposing the transfer to a court of the Argentine Republic of the emblematic trial for the expropriation of YPF in 2012. The national State, already with a new Government, along with the same oil company, will subsequently respond to the plaintiffs offering a clear and forceful argument to defend the need to take this litigation outside the US.But this does not end here because before the end of the year, a judge of the State of Delaware, must decide whether to accept the Argentine request to change the cover of a multimillion-dollar trial against the Argentine company for environmental damages and for fraudulent emptying of a US subsidiary of YPF and move it from a bankruptcy court to a US civil court.If we receive adverse judgments in the two cases mentioned above - something that will not happen this year -, YPF and the national State (we, the taxpayers), we should pay a figure that exceeds USD 1,700 million and could reach USD 19,000 million (this calculation is explained later). Recall that the market value of YPF is USD 3.6 billion.Argentina is a nation known in the international arena for the remarkable number of causes it faces in the main civil and commercial courts of the world. Whether the United States, ICSID or UNCTAD, our country owns about a hundred lawsuits originated by creditors of sovereign debt, by multinationals that saw their concessions terminated prematurely or by shareholders of companies that were harmed by State decisions (contracts) .To fully understand the YPF that will receive its new dome from next December 10, let's analyze each of these cases in detail.Petersen Energía Inversora S.A.U., Petersen Energía S.A.U. and Eton Park CapitalAfter the expropriation of 51% of the shares of YPF that were owned by the Spanish oil company Repsol, the Argentine company, with the national state as its main shareholder, made two crucial decisions that until today, seven years later, continues sufferingIn the first place, YPF did not pay its shareholders the dividends it planned to pay in May 2012. This decision was taken unilaterally by the national government who, until June of the same year, did not call a Shareholders' Meeting to formalize the payment cancellation. of said dividends.Two Spanish companies, Petersen Energía Inversora S.A.U. and Petersen Energía SAU, owners of 25% of the YPF shareholding package at the time of nationalization, were harmed by not being able to pay a loan they had obtained from Repsol itself and from Wall Street banks to acquire the shares in two stages of YPF. The Petersen companies were the second most important shareholder of YPF after Repsol.The loan obtained by Petersen companies was for USD 3,000 million and was guaranteed by YPF shares. When the national government decided to cancel all dividend payments after the expropriation, the Petersen, who paid the interest payments on the loan with these dividends, were forced to default and subsequent liquidation of the companies. Repsol and the Wall Street banks took possession of the YPF shares that, until then, were owned by the Petersen companies.In 2015, the Spanish liquidator, administrator of the liquidation of the Petersen, hired the services of Burford Capital to initiate a dispute against YPF and against the Argentine Republic in the courts of New York. Burford Capital is an Anglo-American company specialized in financing litigation internationally. The Petersen hired Burford for USD 15 million plus 30% of any future economic compensation ordered by the New York courts.Burford noted a very attractive opportunity to quickly profit from this litigation and has already sold 38% of possible future compensation to USD 236 million to 40 institutional investors. A return on invested capital more than interesting. Last July, Burford Capital for the first time presented an official calculation of the amount it expects to receive if the courts finally fail in favor of the Petersen companies. According to a presentation published on July 25, the company estimates that the range of its possible economic benefit is between USD 1.7 billionMeanwhile, the Eton Park Capital fund, which at the time of the expropriation of YPF owned 3% of YPF's shares, has a parallel and identical cause to that presented by the Petersen companies and claims USD 495 million in damages caused by the decision of the Argentine State. Burford Capital, owns 70% of the economic rights of this trial against YPF and against the Argentine Republic.Maxus Energy CorporationThe second heavy legal inheritance that the new YPF administration will receive is a trial for alleged environmental damage and fraudulent emptying filed against the company by former US subsidiary Maxus Energy. The lawsuit raises whether YPF and Repsol have succeeded in their scheme to hide environmental damage to chemical plants owned by both companies in the US. We recall that YPF originally acquired all of Maxus's outstanding shares in 1995 in a bid to expand its exploration and production (E&P) operations in the United States.According to court documents submitted by plaintiff Maxus Energy, when YPF first realized the extent of Maxus' environmental liabilities as owner of contaminated sites throughout the country, it began to divest valuable assets of its subsidiary in an attempt for hiding an eminent problem. YPF successfully resolved possible lawsuits against Maxus and his creditors, and then "buried" Maxus before his environmental claims manifested his true extent.Maxus is currently in liquidation proceedings in a Delaware court.Maxus today demands YPF for a figure that reaches USD 14,000 million, something impossible to pay not only for the company, but also for the national state that owns 51% of the shares.With the arrival of a new Government, the management of YPF is likely to be renewed and with it, its legal strategy. It is no coincidence that last September, the aforementioned Judge Preska, has postponed the continuation of the demand for the expropriation of YPF until December 7 because he wanted to "clarify who will be in charge of the Argentine legal strategy with the possible renewal of the presidency of the country ".This has already happened and now YPF faces two big dates before the end of the year.

[stockvalue] 21/11/2019 23:24

An interesting read-hxxps://fin.guru/noticias/201911/ypf--la-pesada-herencia-legal-que-recibe-la-nueva-cupula-directiva_n12320

[meanwhile] 21/11/2019 17:12

Oh, how awful.

Do you mean leave the AIM pronto?

[time_traveller] 21/11/2019 12:38

Well if you believe in charts (I don't particularly); then it should bounce from around about here.

[rar100] 21/11/2019 12:18

Thanks anyway William, I didn't expect much different. The press are all one sided against Burford it seems and I can only presume it's because it's an easy 'populist' story - having a go at 'Bankers and Lawyers' and of course it's bad news that the papers push mostly.

I wish that Burford would try to even up the score which I think they could easily. I think they are too quiet for most LTH's patience, a bit of a ra-ra about how they help female lawyers, give help to those who without their services could not afford defence etc. etc. They seem to be permanently on the back foot...

[carcosa] 21/11/2019 12:12

Re Times. Delete all ft related cookies in your browser and then you have access

[williamcooper104] 21/11/2019 11:55

Can't copy and paste it alas Doesn't say too much - factual - notes broker downgrade and share price fall

[rar100] 21/11/2019 11:41

Can someone copy the Times article on Burford here for those that are not subscribed like me please.

[winsome] 21/11/2019 06:36

There is too much over-analysis on the share price movements, apart from days when a broker blows with the wind or JP Morgan buys a 5% stake. The share price will drift between ranges until next meaningful update from BUR, making MM's lots of money. Simple as that.

[devalpha] 21/11/2019 05:42

In terms of effect on, and link to, actual business performance, broker notes are irrelevant. Their only relevance is in provoking short term emotional trading.The Berenberg note doesn't mean anything to an investor, even more so when you consider the note they issued almost 2weeks after the MW attack with a price target of over £20. It's ridiculous.Commentary from the broker community and from the financial press should be largely ignored.Do your own thinking and stay patient.Good luck to all long term holders and anyone with a genuine interest.

[williamcooper104] 21/11/2019 00:43

Waters are muddied even further at Burford Capitalhttp://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/8aba6006-0bd0-11ea-800a-ac7a27c0f5a9

[manc10] 20/11/2019 23:34

So I'm a bull here but I can't ignore the serious volume and thinking is this forward selling ahead of a placing ? Or someone needing some cash ? If it's a placing then maybe it's to fund something positive ? Uncertain times don't help of course ... anyway time will tell , am I brave Enough to buy more ... hmmm

[rar100] 20/11/2019 22:07

djderry,

I wish you were head of BUR PR dept! If you had been a few months ago MW wouldn't have happened...

[djderry] 20/11/2019 21:29

I thought there was a substantive point being made here.If ,and it's a big if,their only reservation is the 'concentrated' nature of the net realised gains,then there's nothing to worry about.The only reason,as had been said by winsome and others here,is that they've sold a portion of the claims at an enormous profit so have to include them.That,of course,has a knock-on effect on the unrealised gains portion.And this,somehow ,is a risk? Burford has some really big winners! And that panics people! This is Alice in Wonderland stuff.The day to day business is about picking winners.Actually,the bread-and-butter ones settle.It's about portfolio financing.And then it's also about the 'home runs',such as Petersen.