Burford Capital Share Discussion Threads

[somerset lad] 27/6/2022 12:08

I was quoting from BUR's reply submissions that were filed on 23 June 2022 (docket item 405), section IVB, and I can't see any subsequent submissions from BUR on the Pacer Monitor website. Would you mind please being a bit more precise so I can locate the document on the Court file where BUR concedes that it will forgo interest?

[donald pond] 27/6/2022 11:33

They do say that they will forgo interest if granted the amount they are entitled to under the bye laws at summary judgment. It's in the latest docket

[somerset lad] 27/6/2022 10:52

Donald, BUR has not offered to forgo interest. It says "choosing among these options [regarding interest] is a matter of law, not fact, and the need to do so should not preclude summary judgment". BUR suggests that the choice should be between the New York rate (9%) or the rate used by Argentine courts in commercial matters (6-8%).

BUR maintains its claim for consequential damages, but says that if the Court considers they cannot be awarded without a trial but otherwise is willing to grant summary judgment on the direct damages claims, then it would forego the consequential damages. The consequential damages claim is for $156m plus interest ($133m to 24 Sep 21).

(I don't have the view that the Ds can afford $1-2bn but not more - if the Ds want to be able to access the US financial system and ports and therefore global markets they will ultimately need to pay any sums awarded by the Court.)

[donald pond] 27/6/2022 08:45

Apparently in the pleading BUR have offered to forego interest in order to get a quick settlement. The general view seems to be that however big they win, getting more that 1-2bn paid will be near impossible and so it is better to be realistic but aim for quick payment.

[syoun2] 25/6/2022 10:14

FYI. Nearly 60% of the volume yesterday was US based.

[djderry] 24/6/2022 20:33

And that might be how it ultimately plays out.
But let's speculate for a moment.The essence for a settlement is when both parties can see a clear advantage for their side.I presume a good legal advisor (I'm open to correction here),having represented their client,earned their fee and so on is very nearly obliged to advise at the end of it all as to the realistic chances of success.
At present there is uncertainty as to the outcome of the litigation.When Judge Preska announces her final decision,that uncertainty will evaporate.Let's say,for the sake of speculation and round numbers,one were to put a price on that uncertainty.For the sake of simplicity,call it a billion dollars.
Let's say that YPF/Argentina approach the plaintiffs with the following:(those with a legal backround can comment on its feasibility):Let us jointly apply to the court for a stay on its decision for a set period,say one month/six weeks to see if we can negotiate a settlement.
After six weeks they agree/don't agree.
What's in it for both sides?
For the plaintiffs and Burford,legal certainty.For that,they give the defendants a billion dollar discount.That's on top of the deal agreed at the end of the period.You might think that is crazy.However,(again I speculate)on the day the RNS regarding the stay on the court order was announced to facilitate negotiations,Burford's share price increased by not far off a billion.
The deal,ultimately,had Argentina/YPF paying a paltry $300 million a year for x years.
Again,you might think it derisory.
However,as Burford relied less on the bond markets,their cost of borrowing plummeted while their already impressive ROIC went up,up and away.Did I tell you what happened to the share price?
And for the defendants? Well,firstly,a billion off the bill.That's not to be sneezed at.Secondly,they took back control (a meaningless statement,I know) forcing those English/Yankees to accept a small downpayment followed by manageable annual payments.(Meanwhile,Vaca Muerta's shale play has doubled its production and they hardly notice the payments) Did I mention that the YPF share price took off after they announced a similar deal in the Maxus Energy case? And Argentina became the new poster-boy for the IMF!
If they fail to agree,both sides can blame the other and get brownie points from Judge Preska.Now that's what I call a win-win.

[maddox] 24/6/2022 16:39

After the time this case has been running BUR should leave it in the hands of the judge. Argentina should have looked for a settlement years ago, they've left it too late for a discounted settlement.

[syoun2] 24/6/2022 15:15

Looking like an investment firm have read the court documents and decided to back Burford.

[djderry] 24/6/2022 12:09

I'm not an expert but,at the going rate of $55K per report and $1000 an hour,I may decide to become one.Without rehashing all the legalese,I think the rebuttal to the defendants' reply in 'Exhibit 167' is at the core of the case.These were 'specially crafted Bylaws',(attested to by those who drew them up) to protect minority shareholders in the event of a takeover.In that event,investors were told in the prospectus,( signed off by YPF and Argentina)of the formulae used to agree compensation.
If you trade on the NYSE,then thems the rules.
On another point, Argentina is a proud country with a rich culture.I cannot see them being dragged through a messy enforcement procedure.
If I remember correctly,back in 2019,(or was it 2017?)the Argentine AG attended the hearings.As reported by Inner City Press,Judge Preska asked him why there had been no settlement talks before inviting them in to her chambers.
My hunch is,having played hardball,they'll now sit down and do a deal.

[somerset lad] 24/6/2022 11:31

loglorry1, I'm looking at the documents on the PacerMonitor website. $5 per download. The main new docs seem to me to be nos 405 and 410 (the motion for oral argument - no. 411 - is a one paragraph pro forma).

[alfredomega] 24/6/2022 11:12

Sebastián tweeted:

Argentina/YPF said that, if the court rules againstthem, YPF's bylaws establishes that the compensation must be in pesos and then converted to USD using the sentence day exchange rate, not April 12th, 2015's one.

That's a good signal, it seems that Argentine has assumed that they will have to pay and they are looking for reducing the bill.

[loglorry1] 24/6/2022 10:28

Then surely Argie side will just dispute a fact or bring in something which causes the plaintif to dispute like the "bribe" argument? They will always act to delay. I think this will drag on I'm afraid.

[donald pond] 24/6/2022 10:23

I'd agree with SL, I'd be surprised if the judge didn't admit oral evidence.
The important thing for non-lawyers to appreciate is that for a summary judgment there has to only be a question of law that can be dealt with through argument (written or oral) only: any dispute over facts will always need to be tested by evidence.

[loglorry1] 24/6/2022 10:16

Where are you looking at court docs Somerset?

[somerset lad] 24/6/2022 10:12

The Ds have asked for an oral hearing on the summary judgment applications and (non-expert, not advice) personally I'd be surprised if a common law judge chose to issue such a significant judgment without first hearing argument.

The Ds don't seem to have much by way of factual disputes that might justify a trial: their arguments seem to me focused on legal submissions.

I don't see the "bribe" arguments in the Ds' Reply submissions from yesterday or in their previous submissions - can anyone direct me to the relevant section?

[loglorry1] 24/6/2022 09:59

Yes and to be fair they have had the last laugh. They've had billions from the IMF (US gov) and each time they screw someone over they are eventually forgiven and lend more.

[donald pond] 24/6/2022 09:41

To be fair log, Argentina do have a very long record of running no hope arguments. Their legal modus operandi is not to win cases but to delay them.

[loglorry1] 23/6/2022 22:54

That's my point Donald. If it was as trivial as you make out then they wouldn't run with this argument. We don't have all the info but I'm sure it's not the slam dunk you say it is.

[maddox] 23/6/2022 22:02

Surely some of these technical arguments - if fatal to the plaintiff's case would have been aired and killed the case long ago?

If there is anything that'll drag this out further it'll be arriving at a fair value for compensation.

[donald pond] 23/6/2022 10:56

No, the judge will decide the case, but if that's their strongest argument it's a pretty weak one. But Burford would have to show that it is irrelevant on the basis of "bona fide purchaser for value" if it is to get summary judgment. If it might be relevant, they will need to look at facts and evidence.

[loglorry1] 23/6/2022 10:46

I am not saying the "bribe" argument has tremendous merit I'm pointing out that it exists and will be considered. There is a danger here of trying to become lawyers.

[reubion] 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.

[donald pond] 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

[alfredomega] 23/6/2022 10:14

@loglorry

That's not the case of Eaton Park, they bought the shares in the open market.