We could not find any results for:
Make sure your spelling is correct or try broadening your search.
Share Name | Share Symbol | Market | Type | Share ISIN | Share Description |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Burford Capital Limited | LSE:BUR | London | Ordinary Share | GG00BMGYLN96 | ORD NPV (DI) |
Price Change | % Change | Share Price | Bid Price | Offer Price | High Price | Low Price | Open Price | Shares Traded | Last Trade | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
24.00 | 2.01% | 1,218.00 | 1,216.00 | 1,219.00 | 1,228.00 | 1,195.00 | 1,195.00 | 489,659 | 16:29:51 |
Industry Sector | Turnover | Profit | EPS - Basic | PE Ratio | Market Cap |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Unit Inv Tr, Closed-end Mgmt | 1.39B | 610.52M | 2.7883 | 4.37 | 2.67B |
Date | Subject | Author | Discuss |
---|---|---|---|
23/6/2022 10:41 | I think there is almost 0% chance that we hear anything today/very soon. Today is the deadline for the parties' last filings. Rushing out a decision immediately afterwards looks strange, even if Judge Preska had already made up her mind, she certainly would try to give the impression that she carefully reviewed every last filing, possibly even reference it in her judgment etc. Overall, I feel that the likely timing of this case has been hyped up a bit. I see a good chance for at least an oral hearing regarding the SJ motions and even then, Judge Preska might prefer to take the case to a full trial. Giving parties the option for a de-novo appeal by issuing a summary judgment for a case that has been running so long feels strange, but let's see what happens. | reubion | |
23/6/2022 10:35 | And if Petersen acquired the shares as the result of a bribe that's not necessarily an issue. Most laws have the concept of the bona fide purchaser for value without notice. In other words, if you buy something and don't know (and could not have reasonably known) that there is a "problem" with how the seller acquired it, you acquire it free of that problem. | donald pond | |
23/6/2022 10:19 | I don't think case can settle without approval from Argentine parliament which is most unlikely as that would involve an admission of wrongdoing. After the judgment a negotiated settlement is likely as that will be a matter of pragmatism | donald pond | |
23/6/2022 10:14 | @loglorry That's not the case of Eaton Park, they bought the shares in the open market. | alfredomega | |
23/6/2022 09:24 | Will we actually here anything today, presumably up to Judge Preska when she responds. | lomax99 | |
23/6/2022 09:22 | Odd that the case hasn't been settled out of court by now. | divmad | |
23/6/2022 09:04 | Also its seems the best argument YPF have in Petersen is that the expropriated shares were a bribe (which seems at least in part true) and so the transaction was illegal. As such it should fall under Argie legislation bla bla bla I think that YPF/Argintina have some good arguments in Petersen and I would give them 25% in winning and higher in getting it deffered. And yes I am long BUR and talking down my own book. | loglorry1 | |
23/6/2022 09:02 | Maxus case for YPF delayed by 1-2 years as it’s been sent to trial. “La Corte de Delaware falla a favor de YPF en caso Maxus Energy. Opina que no es posible responder todos los argumentos en este momento y manda el caso a juicio. De esta manera, YPF y Repsol evitan el pago de US$712 millones y la responsabilidad de daños ambientales por US$14.000 millones. La definición del caso se extiende al menos de 12 a 24 meses”, indicó Sebastián Maril, consultor de Latam Advisors, en declaraciones recogidas por el medio La Nación." Into the long grass. Good for YPF bondholders like me! | loglorry1 | |
23/6/2022 08:23 | Today is the day. | lazg | |
21/6/2022 11:16 | From Seb twitterThe week begins with a lot of news for Argentina in the US courts: - 6 days without ruling in case of Maxus vs. YPF/Repsol (maximum 10 left). - On Thursday, the YPF expropriation case ends and the wait begins for a ruling or, perhaps, an announcement of Oral Arguments. Tick tock tick tock | chester9 | |
20/6/2022 13:38 | Yes, a tiddler but maybe having some interesting parallels. There seem to be a few echos of the Sundance case here (if anyone doesn't know, BUR is also funding that claim for around $9bn with the process starting in 2021). The arbitration notice in this case was served in June 2015 (arbitration concluded in 2019) but BUR only got involved in 2018. Stans Energy was claiming $128m but the arbitration tribunal only awarded $15m plus interest and a contribution to (but not all of) the claimants costs. The tribunal's rationale is heavy but interesting reading; it essentially looks like yet another government arguing that they can expropriate whatever they like should the whim take them and the tribunal saying a resolute no but being rather tepid in terms of compensation award. | 1aconic | |
20/6/2022 13:38 | Yes, a tiddler but maybe having some interesting parallels. There seem to be a few echos of the Sundance case here (if anyone doesn't know, BUR is also funding that claim for around $9bn with the process starting in 2021). The arbitration notice in this case was served in June 2015 (arbitration concluded in 2019) but BUR only got involved in 2018. Stans Energy was claiming $128m but the arbitration tribunal only awarded $15m plus interest and a contribution to (but not all of) the claimants costs. The tribunal's rationale is heavy but interesting reading; it essentially looks like yet another government arguing that they can expropriate whatever they like should the whim take them and the tribunal saying a resolute no but being rather tepid in terms of compensation award. | 1aconic | |
20/6/2022 09:20 | A tiddler:Https://glob | lomax99 | |
18/6/2022 13:55 | Try registering here, if you still can:Https://www.burf | lomax99 | |
18/6/2022 13:33 | Does anyone know if there's a link to a recording of Thursday's shareholder call? Hoping you can provide if there is one. | warno01 | |
15/6/2022 13:22 | Investors holding back awaiting announcement. Hopefully once FED reports interest rates later we can start to see the price rising again. | syoun2 | |
13/6/2022 23:55 | HaHa spot on lomax - 10c on the $1. Hmmm, it also wouldn't be much of a vote of confidence in your specialist asset recovery unit - if you sold it off at a discount because it was 'too difficult' to collect. Whom could they sell it to - a competitor? I don't think the investors in BUR's Post-Settlement Fund would be too impressed either. | maddox | |
13/6/2022 13:31 | The fund's only got $350m to play with, part perhaps but certainly not anticipating that steep a discount! | lomax99 | |
13/6/2022 11:57 | Precisely my thoughts, alfredo. | divmad | |
13/6/2022 11:54 | I would say that they are confident to win Petersen, but they know it will be difficult to collect the money. Winning this will be however a reputation victory anyway. They probably will sell this to the post-settlement fund at discount, collecting cash and reducing their risk/recompense exposure by sharing it with third parties. They did the same with Aerolineas Argentina arbitrage, they sold it to a third party at discount after winning it. | alfredomega | |
13/6/2022 11:10 | Fun and Games on price seems to be kicking off. 5% drop so far to shake out holders nervous before Preska updates everyone in two weeks. GLTLHS I am holding tight. | chester9 | |
13/6/2022 09:12 | I thought the timing was convenient as well! Painful times in stockmarkets at the moment but, assuming Petersen is a win (an important assumption obviously!), I can't think of many businesses that will be more immune/will benefit from whatever this macro cycle is going to throw at us than Burford. | houseofpain1 | |
13/6/2022 08:53 | Interesting that BUR launches a post settlement fund just at the moment we discuss whether it will be able to enforce judgment in the YPF case. | donald pond | |
11/6/2022 23:10 | Maybe so, but depending on Bur's assessment of the likely time to collect, and with a cash-constrained b/s, maybe m'ment will take the view that the discounted cash proceeds now can be put to excellent use in new deal flow. Nice problem to have, btw. | divmad |
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