Burford Capital Share Discussion Threads

[this tea tastes of chicken] 31/3/2023 18:33

Thank you for the summary Somerset Lad, very grateful.

Time to get some popcorn.

[donald pond] 31/3/2023 18:25

Very good timing today Ptolemy. I was on a conference call at the time so I bloody missed it, else I'd have been on the spread bet at £6 grrrr

[ptolemy] 31/3/2023 18:24

So, is that a pre-tax value of $21/share?

[tnt99] 31/3/2023 18:18

What price the shares now worth in my view 30-40 pounds would not be unreasonable given they were 20 pounds a few years ago with Peterson Not even certain the win now it is and it should add up to billions

[erocnelg] 31/3/2023 18:09

Current price up almost 60pc

[syoun2] 31/3/2023 18:07

Anyone know exactly what’s come out

[somerset lad] 31/3/2023 18:04

If for any reason you were trying to work out fair value to update the $773m mark in your books (!), I agree, Donald Pond, that you would probability weight a distribution from 6 to 8% for the interest, and apply discounts for (i) the chances of Argentina paying into [escrow] and appealing successfully and, separately, (ii) the risk of non-collection.

[donald pond] 31/3/2023 17:56

The numbers get so big though with 10 years of interest that (obvs) if you used a 7% rate you'd add 10% to those figures.
It is all moot, what matters is whether it goes to enforcement or can be settled. There is no reason for Bur to agree to 6% or to drop their indirect damages claim unless Argentina agree to pony up something that is acceptable.
And the sum is big enough to be big news in Argentina, so the political repercussions will be interesting too

[stentorian] 31/3/2023 17:55

I notice that the La Nacion report has Burford down as an English fund rather than the Balliwick of Guernsey.

[return_of_the_apeman] 31/3/2023 17:52

Thanks Somerset lad

[somerset lad] 31/3/2023 17:45

A rough calculation - please correct any errors. NB not legal advice, DYOR, save the $5 and read on BUR's website as carcosa says!

Let’s (i) assume 13/2/12 date so direct damages = $7.533 bn for Petersen and $898m for Eton Park; (ii) interest rate of 6% rather than 9%; assume simple, so reduces the amount to 24/9/21 to $4.27bn for Petersen and $509m for Eton Park; (iii) add a further 1.5 years’ interest (running) at 6% = $678m for Petersen and $81m for Eton Park; (iv) assume plaintiffs drop their indirect damages.

This makes a rough guess at BUR’s share: 0.315 x (7,533 + 4,270 + 678) + 0.7 x (898 + 509 + 81) = $4,973m.

[aishah] 31/3/2023 17:42

Why is only up 40% in the US?

[return_of_the_apeman] 31/3/2023 17:42

Nice summary Somerset Lad

What's do you make the total for Burford?

Mcap is currently only circa. 1.6Billion

[carcosa] 31/3/2023 17:40

Judgement now available for free from BUR website at:

[tnt99] 31/3/2023 17:37

What price a share now 30 pounds given the magnitude of this ruling?

[somerset lad] 31/3/2023 17:30

On a quick, initial read: BUR won its claim for breach of contract vs. Argentina. Damages are payable in dollars based on the formula in the by-laws. There are two (or three) questions outstanding for possible argument and/or evidence. First, the precise date to be used when applying the formula (pp. 54-58). There seems little in issue here since the Judge ruled that Argentina was bound by an admission it had made, but nevertheless the precise date was not agreed between the parties and gives rise to a factual issue. (Given the admission and since the formula looks to the highest PE in the 2 years preceding the date, this issue may not make any difference to the precise sum.) Second, the precise rate of interest to be used is reserved, but seems set to be between 6 and 8% (pp 62 and 63). Third, fn. 11 on p. 54 states that the Court reserves judgment on the consequential damages claims and suggests that the plaintiffs may consider it "sufficiently minor to forgo".

Going back to the submissions in the case, the plaintiffs argued: “Damages must be determined as if Argentina had completed the tender-offer process by the time it took control of YPF". “These calculations result in $7.533 billion in direct damages for Petersen and $898 million in direct damages for Eton Park – again, using a February 13, 2012 notice date” “Defendants217; damages expert Professor Jeffrey Harris did not identify any arithmetic errors in Professor Fischel’s calculations.” “they are a direct result of the scope of the breach and the formula that Defendants purposefully included in the Bylaws (and touted in the IPO prospectus) in order to provide the clear promise of recompense necessary to attract billions of dollars of foreign investment”. “as indirect damages, Petersen should also receive the value that its shares lost between April 16, 2012 and their foreclosure – $156 million”. “the relevant prejudgment interest rate is New York’s 9%” “That rate generates $6.405 billion in prejudgment interest on the tender offer that Petersen should have received and $763 million on the tender offer that Eton Park should have received through September 24, 2021, with prejudgment interest continuing to accrue thereafter” “The additional $156 million Petersen lost as a result of the drop in value of its shares generates prejudgment interest of $133 million through September 24, 2021,”.

Comparing the submissions to the Judgment: (i) there is scope for some change because the Court may find a notice date that is different from 13 February 2012 (although as noted above, I doubt (but don't know) it will make much difference); (ii) the rate of interest seems set to be lower than 9% and instead somewhere between 6 and 8%; (iii) the Judge is steering the plaintiffs to drop the indirect damages claims; (iv) interest will be payable for longer because the Judgment took so long.

I believe BUR gets 31.5% of the Petersen claim and 70% of the Eton Park claim.

NB not legal advice, DYOR, pay the $5 and read the judgment on Pacer!

[astreix] 31/3/2023 17:26

hxxps://www.lanacion.com.ar/economia/juicio-por-ypf-la-justicia-norteamericana-fallo-en-contra-de-la-argentina-pero-a-favor-de-la-nid31032023/

[williamcooper104] 31/3/2023 17:25

That's the important bit

[aishah] 31/3/2023 17:18

Suitably timed bottom fishing around £5 following the storm in a tea cup a couple of weeks ago. Will they reward holders with a special payout?

[loglorry1] 31/3/2023 17:18

Does this mean YPF are fully off the hook? Getting ARG state to pay will be harder than both YPF and state.

[donald pond] 31/3/2023 17:14

I think the date may affect the price at which the offer should have been made.

[riverman77] 31/3/2023 17:12

Should have a lot lot further to go now this is out the way - remember this was trading around £15 before the MW attack so even after today's rise it is still almost 50% down from its 2019 level. And that's before you even consider some of the other big case wins that are starting to come through. Just glad I took the opportunity to do a big top up when it inexplicably dropped 20% a couple of weeks ago.

[bestace] 31/3/2023 17:10

On currency:

"the Republic argues that... damages must be determined in pesos as of the date judgment is entered and then be converted. The Court disagrees... Plaintiffs are suing for the breach of the Republic’s obligation to perform its tender offer obligation
under the Bylaws, not for a sum certain denominated in pesos... the Court is left with the general rule that where damages are sustained in a foreign currency, ‘New York courts apply the breach day rule, whereby the appropriate measure of damages is the equivalent of such foreign currency in terms of dollars, at the rate of exchange prevailing at the date of breach"

[williamcooper104] 31/3/2023 17:05

Wouldn't the date just effect the amount of interest paid - it's something but unlikely to hugely material