Burford Capital Share Discussion Threads

[divmad] 17/5/2022 19:35

Seems odds on to be 0-5 with this case. But why wouldn't Argentina just string Burford et al along for another few years, before any cash changes hands?

[lomax99] 17/5/2022 17:47

Google translate:Energetic politicsAfter seven years, the trial for the expropriation of YPF endsThe economic damages associated with an adverse ruling amount to almost 20,000 million dollars, according to documents presented in a New York court on April 14. After seven years, the trial for the expropriation of YPF endsOne of the YPF Gas plants.sebastian marilfifteen05/07/2022 0:00Clarin.com EconomyUpdated on 05/07/2022 21:53In April 2015, two Spanish companies, Petersen Energía Inversora and Petersen Energía, filed a claim in the New York courts against the Argentine State and against YPF related to the decision of the then President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner to nationalize the Argentine oil company.At that time, the Petersen companies owned 25% of the YPF shares that they acquired in 2008 and 2011 using a series of loans granted by the large Wall Street banks and by the also Spanish Repsol.In November 2016, Eton Park Capital, a New York fund and owner of 2.9% of YPF shares, also joined the case. This is how the owners of 28% of the shares not expropriated by the Argentine State began one of the most exciting cases that the US courts have seen in more than three decades.From that moment and to date, the trial for the expropriation of YPF has passed through the Court of the Southern District of New York, by the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, by the Supreme Court of the United States and has returned to the New York court where Judge Loretta Preska will soon decide whether we Argentine taxpayers will have to pay an amount that can reach 19,376 million dollars, according to official calculations presented on April 14 in a court in the Big Apple.It is worth noting that this calculation is not arbitrary, but is derived from a formula that details Article 7, Point F, Section G of the YPF Statute, which was modified by the administration of former President Carlos Menem in the framework of the privatization of YPF. the company in the 1990s.The irresponsible interpretation of international laws by the different Argentine governments has led the country to be sued over and over again by multiple international interests since 2000.The agreement for the debt in default (the so-called "holdouts"), the expropriation of companies such as Aerolineas Argentinas, Aguas Argentinas and YPF, and the asymmetric pesification of dollarized contracts, are just some of the examples that illustrate how the Argentine State does not respects the will of those who decide to invest in our country. These lawsuits have already cost us more than 17,000 million dollars in rulings and/or compensation to injured parties and there are still open and unresolved lawsuits.Economic damages paid by ArgentinaToday, the interest generated by the resolution of the case for the expropriation of YPF in the international investment community is unprecedented. Judge Preska's ruling reveals creditors of Argentine sovereign bonds, shareholders of the oil company and also shareholders of Burford Capital, the company that owns the majority of both lawsuits against the Argentine State.Each of these parties, whether they are debt issuers and/or publicly traded companies, have invested many resources over the past seven years to argue for their interests. American and British funds have bought parts of the litigation and today it is estimated that about 45% of the Petersen and Eton cases are in the hands of private investors and well-known investment funds.Meanwhile, shareholders of Burford Capital and YPF are already beginning to speculate on the impact that the ruling will have on the share price. According to Burford Capital, 85% of the London company's unrealized profits are tied to a favorable resolution of the case. The potential is extraordinary.But, how can it be that Argentina has reached the point of running the risk of having to pay a figure that can reach up to 20,000 million dollars?The answer is based on the previously mentioned irresponsible interpretation of the contracts signed with people and/or companies that choose to invest in the country. When the Argentine Congress in April 2012 voted in favor of nationalizing YPF and expropriating 51% of Repsol's shares, it "forgot" about the remaining 49%.In the business world, when a company undergoes a change of control and new shareholders take over the reins of operations, they are obliged to offer the rest of the shareholders the possibility of buying their holdings in the company through a Public Acquisition Offer. (OPA). In 2012, the then government of Cristina Fernández de Kirchner made public its decision not to exercise this contractual obligation, thus breaching the YPF Statute.Was Argentina, as a sovereign country, obliged to acquire the remaining 49% through a takeover bid? Is the Public Law of our country (Public Interest Law) above the Law that governs corporations? Should the country recognize the Statute of a company like YPF when that Statute forces the State to fail to comply with other existing laws?These answers and many others are the ones that Judge Preska will have to answer in what is expected to be a long ruling starting on June 24. Both parties have presented a long list of experts who have presented their arguments to persuade the Judge, who has already stated that she will "consider" the laws of the Argentine Republic when she makes a decision.Argentina has already suffered rulings or received adverse opinions on four occasions: the Court of Judge Preska (twice), the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court. With a 0-4 down on the "global score", it is unlikely that the Argentine lawyers will be able to reverse this result in stoppage time. However, as long as the case remains open, all is not lost for the country.

[gusrezo] 17/5/2022 16:33

Sebastian Marin in Clarin, one of the main argetinian newspapers 07-may (in spanish)
hxxps://www.clarin.com/economia/despues-anos-finaliza-juicio-expropiacion-ypf_0_LENTqt7wiI.html

[ptolemy] 17/5/2022 16:24

Thanks for comments.

[williamcooper104] 16/5/2022 20:41

Yep it's a sterling bond against mainly dollar revenues

[michaelem] 16/5/2022 16:48

Exchange rate very favourable and there could also be receipt of some settlement cash.

[ptolemy] 16/5/2022 14:58

BUR are redeeming the BUR1 bond August 2022 early, in a week or so. With only a few months to go to the original redemption what reasons are there for BUR to bring the date forward just a few months?

[tradertrev] 13/5/2022 11:34

Funny that the author of this piece has transformed Burford's CEO into a JK Rowling-created monster - Boggart, an amortal shape-shifting non-being that took on the form of its observer's worst fear. In the case of corporate ne'er-do-wells, perhaps the chief executive of the world's largest litigation funder!

[chester9] 13/5/2022 09:06

Thank you for posting a well balanced read.

[lomax99] 13/5/2022 08:34

Litigation finance focus in this week's Moneyweek magazine:

[noblerotter] 13/5/2022 08:22

Burford Capital Limited, the leading global finance and asset management firm focused on law, today announces the purchase of 29,278 of Burford's ordinary shares of nil par value ("Shares") by Burford Capital LLC in connection with obligations under the Burford employee deferred compensation plan . All of the Shares were purchased on the London Stock Exchange on May 12, 2022 at an average price of 610.9253p per Share.

[donald pond] 12/5/2022 08:40

Showing a bit of relative strength. The dollar is up 15% over the last year, which is a big tailwind. Tempted to add here, YPF news cannot be that far away

[somerset lad] 11/5/2022 21:46

Thanks houseofpain1.

Does anyone know what claim was referred to in the 9.9.21 interims -- a large antitrust case with expected costs contribution of $277m involving large numbers of cases against a financially strong multinational? (Not a cartel case since only one Defendant. Sounds like Visa or MasterCard interchange fees, but interested in anyone with better knowledge or other ideas.)

[dagoberia] 11/5/2022 11:25

6.25p per share

[williamcooper104] 11/5/2022 10:47

It a one something yield Doesn't matter

[divmad] 11/5/2022 09:27

What's the dividend payment per share?

[dagoberia] 10/5/2022 14:14

Nice to buy at these prices with ex div 26/05

[divmad] 10/5/2022 13:06

Until those settled cases start rolling in, not many investors have a clue what is the nav of Bur, or how to value it on a worst case scenario.

[riverman77] 10/5/2022 12:00

It was the same during the Covid sell off in 2020 - BUR fell way more than wider market. Does seem strange though that it is down again today when everything else in my portfolio is up.

[time_traveller] 10/5/2022 11:27

I guess so, but it's dramatically underperforming even this negative market ... and it defies logic (that's in the public domain at least)

[riverman77] 10/5/2022 11:21

Unlikely I think - pretty much everything has been falling the past few weeks and BUR itself has a habit of dropping very sharply for no apprrent reason. I doubt anyone is particularly surprised by the latest dip.

[time_traveller] 10/5/2022 11:09

Surely significant falls like this, short and medium term, normally merit an unscheduled management statement (even if it's "know of no reason")?

[chester9] 10/5/2022 10:22

Yes that was not the brightest of ideas. Still I sold another share which has fared worse since so in one way it worked but it was not the plan. I will just hold with the rest of my Burford shares and await upcoming judgements. St Ledgers day in September seems a long way away so I hope to prefer Preska's day. GLA