Burford Capital Share Discussion Threads

[stockvalue] 10/12/2019 12:55

@rar100 As a investor you should not spend too much attention to reporters or the news in my opinion, they are mainly here to entertain and not to give investment advice. On your question about the financial impact of a Peterson losing, their is enough information provided by Burford to answer that question for yourself. IMO there would be no huge finacial impact exceeding the financing loses because the single court cases are uncorrelated. What i find suprising is that a lot of retail investors seems to watch out for reporters opinion and base their opinion on reporters opinion instead of just reading the official court case papers. I mean Reporters are reporters cause they are bad investors. They are basically not clever enough for the hedge fund business, and can't compete in the mutual fund marketing buisness. Why would somebody care about the opinion of reporters?

[djderry] 10/12/2019 12:50

rar100,of course no litigation matter is guaranteed.Even the strongest case can fail.However,every single judicial matter concerning this case has been in Burford's favour.Argentina has settled with the other 50% shareholder,so we have precedent.More importantly,the share in the YPF traded on the New York Stock exchange and therefore was/is subject to its rules.I could go on and on.Believe what you like.You are staring a five -bagger in the face.

[mad foetus] 10/12/2019 12:42

I'm not sure why you think there is a fair chance of BUR losing out entirely. The claim is about the strongest you will ever see: a company listed on the NYSE was seized by the Argentine state. The listing documents set out how compensation would be paid if that happened. They paid the compensation to 51% of the shareholders but paid nothing to the rest. It really is about the simplest case imaginable.
Argentina tried to get the case heard in Argentina on the basis that it was the proper forum. The New Work court disagreed, Argentina appealed etc, and eventually the Supreme Court found that NY was the most appropriate court.
Now Argentina are saying that the case should be heard in Argentina because it is the most convenient court. The reason for this is that Argentina won't let witnesses leave Argentina to give evidence. So I put the chances of Argentina persuading the NY courts to use their discretion in the favour of Argentina as zero.
So imo, this ends in one of 2 ways. Either BUR win, and win big (I believe the claim is in the region of $9bn plus interest) but are left with the issue of how to enforce the judgment. Or they reach a settlement with Argentina for a much smaller sum (but they would need the approval of the co-holders of the claim, so that is unlikely to be for less than $2bn). And enforcement won't be an issue then, for obvious reasons.
BUR may have spent $20m on legal fees related to Petersen, we don't know. But they have sold chunks of it for around $200m so its not an issue.
But to be frank, if you don't know this, I'm not sure why you bought in.

[wantage] 10/12/2019 12:36

Galatea.Thanks.

[rar100] 10/12/2019 12:29

So to me it looks like that there is a fair chance of Burford losing out totally on the Peterson case after spending $18.4 initially, I presume it's spent more since then. I wonder, if that turned out to be the case, how good an investment in BUR would be after it takes that hit. Possibly it can take that loss and still make good profits on it's business. I think that's a question that needs to be answered by Burford.
I'm neither an accountant or lawyer and so I can only form any opinions from what I read (and then understand).
Many of the posts here discussing law and finance, though interesting, do go over my head with the legal/financial jargon/acronyms employed. However the essence of these posts can be explained in common English if employed.
I look forward to reading posters opinions of the latest FT article posted here (14862) and my general question - If for whatever reason BUR lost all monies spent on the Peterson case, whether BUR is still a good investment, and I wonder also if they would survive.

[stockvalue] 10/12/2019 11:39

Does anybody in this forum thread has access to PACER??

[galatea99] 10/12/2019 11:32

Wantage, there is plenty of information available in Spanish. You would need to search for the term "Burford" and then use Google Translate. You may find occasional articles available in English.

The Argentine press includes "Clarín" and "La Nación" from Buenos Aires plus a large number of regional publications from cities such as Mendoza and Cordoba.

"El Cronista" has a free daily newsletter, also in Spanish.

Other blogs worth looking at include that of Sebastian Maril on "FinGuru".

The Buenos Aires Herald closed a couple of years ago. It had been a much respected source of news in English. There is still LatinAmericanPost with an English version but not exclusively about Argentina.

(Add: Also use Google Alerts for "Burford Capital", set to "all languages", then Google Translate articles of interest).

[time_traveller] 10/12/2019 10:51

Yes, that would be an interesting contest - which is more biased? - the FT or the Argentinian press!

[wantage] 10/12/2019 09:53

Does anyone have access to Spanish/South American press? It would be very helpful To find out latest comments about Petersen in English.

[onup] 10/12/2019 08:44

Still in inv. chron top 10 in top 100 aim

[pal44] 10/12/2019 08:29

Some thing spooked this today ...

[brexitplus] 10/12/2019 07:48

Tradertrev. The FT is biased. full-stop.

[vstock] 10/12/2019 01:11

hxxps://fin.guru/noticias/201912/burford-capital-perdio-la-paciencia-con-ypf_n12461

[galatea99] 09/12/2019 19:55

"Burford chief executive fears Argentine reprisals
Chris Bogart tells US court he fears for safety if $1bn case is moved to Buenos Aires"





"Burford Capital’s chief executive has told a US court that he could be threatened or imprisoned by the Argentine government if a $1bn court case were moved to Buenos Aires.

“I do not put it past the Argentine government to attempt to imprison me or otherwise menace me,” said Chris Bogart, who co-founded Burford, in a legal declaration to a US court late last week. “Neither I nor other members of the Burford team would be able to participate in proceedings there given concerns about our safety.”

The litigation financing company is pursuing the South American nation on behalf of Petersen Group, an investor that went bust when the government nationalised oil company YPF in 2012. Burford has valued its total stake in the case at $1bn.

A US court ruled in September 2018 that Burford’s case could go ahead in the US, but Argentina has challenged the decision on jurisdictional grounds.

Mr Bogart said he had warned his family and Burford employees of the risk of travelling to Argentina. He said: “Argentina will not hesitate to use tactics outside the four corners of this litigation in an effort to avoid responsibility for its actions [which] heightens my concern about personal safety.”

Burford initially invested $18.4m in Petersen’s claims against Argentina and has so far made $236m by selling parts of its stake to third parties. The Aim-listed company, which is the world’s largest litigation funder, is resisting Argentina’s jurisdictional challenge.

Mr Bogart admitted that sending the case to Argentina “would hobble and perhaps destroy it”.


Burford’s $1bn valuation in its Petersen stake was attacked by short-seller Muddy Waters this summer, which accused the financier of “pulling forward” returns while not accounting for accompanying obligations. Burford is still reeling from the Muddy Waters report, which alleged it had misled investors by overstating the value of the cases it was funding and criticised its accounts and management. The report slashed Burford’s share price almost in half.


Burford defended its accounting methods as “reliable and judicious” and has claimed to have found evidence that trading of its shares was illegally manipulated around the time of the report’s publication in August.

It has since disclosed the extent to which its performance hinges on the Petersen case. Burford said in September its return on invested capital spanning all of its investments stood at 98 per cent but acknowledged that this would fall to 59 per cent if its Petersen claim were stripped out. Burford’s internal rate of return would fall from 32 per cent to 24 per cent, it said.

Argentina’s Peronist party, which was in power at the time of the expropriation of YPF’s assets in 2012, returns to power on Tuesday amid fears among investors of a deterioration of relations with the private sector. A spokesperson for the incoming government did not comment."

[stockvalue] 09/12/2019 15:57

hxxps://www.ambito.com/economia/ypf/caso-ypf-burford-se-pinta-la-cara-contra-alberto-fernandez-n5070050

[maddox] 09/12/2019 14:42

trident5,

The Argentinian currency's value is irrelevant to Burford because the Petersen judgement will be made in US Dollars and that is what Argentina will have to pay to settle the claim in. There isn't any need to negotiate a settlement - that opportunity went a long time ago.

Regards Maddox

[ozzmosiz] 09/12/2019 12:36

Owned my the Chinese now....

[tradertrev] 09/12/2019 12:32

Is the FT biased against Burford? Well, do they carry advertising from large corporates, who don't like the litigation field levelled up? I have a feeling they do.

[mad foetus] 09/12/2019 07:05

The asset still exists. The court could always order restitution if Argentina won't pony up. They could even say that BUR is entitled to x% of the income flow to Vaca Muerte until the debt is repaid. There are lots of possibilities.

[onjohn] 09/12/2019 06:22

Muddy water saying bur zero ?

[trident5] 08/12/2019 18:28

"The weakness in Argentina’s currency is also irrelevant".

It's not though, is it?

If the matter gets resolved by settlement, then it's a negotiation which will be impacted by how much Argentina is willing to settle at, and that will be impacted by currency weakness.

[george stobbart] 06/12/2019 16:28

LABOUR WILL WIN.

COMANDANTE CORBYN WILL BRING BURFORD BACK TO THE PEOPLE WHERE IT BELONGS FOR 1P PER SHARE.

AND YOU DISGUSTING TORIES WILL OBEY THE NEW SUPREME LEADER.

YOU WILL LEARN TO CO-OPERATE UNDER SOCIALISM AND YOU WILL LOVE IT.

[time_traveller] 06/12/2019 15:09

Usual rabidly (and suspiciously) anti Burford editorial from FT. Anyway, who is this "betting person" who says that Argentina can ignore Burford? - A figment of the FTs imagination, it seems - what we do have is an institutional investor making a $100m bet to the contrary. It also ignores that debt recoveries from court rulings are very different from government issued debt, and cannot be conflated (edit, I see that was mentioned above - anyway my understanding is that tools available to Burford would have more teeth, and greater in scope, although chasing assets inside fortress Argentina may indeed be difficult, so a siege strategy should yield dividends over coming years, albeit diminishing ones)

[williamcooper104] 06/12/2019 14:08

One is a claim with no contractual date within which it will be settled The other is a claim with fixed contractual payment dates With a restructuring contractual debts now won't be paid on time and will probably best lower rates of interest - thus their value falls With a claim it doesn't necessarily make a difference - it all depends on where your starting point is for when you assume it will be settled Management have guided that they have assumed that this is quite some time away Of course I've not seen the calculations/detailed assumptions behind the marks so I can't say that they are robust but equally can't say that they are not