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 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2.00 | 0.17% | 1,212.00 | 1,212.00 | 1,214.00 | 1,250.00 | 1,198.00 | 1,250.00 | 89,886 | 16:15:50 |
Industry Sector | Turnover | Profit | EPS - Basic | PE Ratio | Market Cap |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Unit Inv Tr, Closed-end Mgmt | 1.39B | 610.52M | 2.7883 | 4.33 | 2.65B |
Date | Subject | Author | Discuss |
---|---|---|---|
15/7/2023 15:23 | They have a bit of a pop at BUR's prospective gains, too. Though it seems likely that Preska won't have a problem with an example of raw capitalism in action. This evidently hostile site considers her a willing servant of the 'system'. hxxps://jacobin.com/ She certainly seems to be on the side of the big battalions, shall we say. | extrader | |
15/7/2023 12:46 | Seb updatehttps://twitte | three black crows | |
14/7/2023 17:26 | Not to worry - I think I've bought up most of the overhang! ;-) | time_traveller | |
13/7/2023 21:30 | So the Baillie Gifford holding would have been about 0.5% of Burford's shares - is that enough to significantly move the share price and account for the recent weakness? | riverman77 | |
13/7/2023 20:49 | 14 July - parties have to submit pre-trial briefs of no more than 10 pages. | stentorian | |
13/7/2023 18:26 | Ah, sorry. Yes | reddirish | |
13/7/2023 15:04 | Bogart piece in The Times...https://arch | scubadiverr | |
13/7/2023 12:33 | Sale was £11.4m, not over £100m. | lomax99 | |
13/7/2023 12:23 | Yes. Selling over £100m worth over a matter of a week or so will have had an impact, even for a company capitalised at over £2b. | reddirish | |
13/7/2023 08:08 | Shortly before close the fund was valued at £137m and their Burford holding was 8.3% of the fund - approx £11.4m. | lomax99 | |
12/7/2023 17:01 | Baillie Gifford has shut it's British Small companies fund, which had a sizeable holding in BUR. That might explain some of the recent share price weakness, as the holding was sold down | reddirish | |
12/7/2023 09:04 | September 13th is Q2/H1 announcement according to June 26 RNS. August 4th is the end date of YPF damages trial with final written submission due before judge Preska takes time to adjudicate. Don’t think there’s anything else material on the horizon. | kuk1doh | |
12/7/2023 08:54 | Don't forget we have the 23H1 results due in early August. | stentorian | |
12/7/2023 08:51 | RBG announced it has divested from Litigation Finance this morning | dekle | |
12/7/2023 08:26 | Looks like share price being played with ahead of court and outcome at end of July | chester9 | |
10/7/2023 09:16 | I've reread my post and are struggling to see what you are. I'm not suggesting that Argentina shouldn't be bound by law, far from it. I'm saying that if YPF became part of the settlement, Argentina could change their law so that ownership of YPF in their jurisdiction wouldn't be profitable for the owner and that the domestic market could still be supplied discounted oil like they receive today by way of export bans. I think ownership of YPF would be too risky to take on and any resale value would reflect this.If Argentina would have done this in the first place rather than nationalising YPF it would could have been legal and they wouldn't be looking at the judgement they soon will be and yet would have benefited to a similar degree from the resource. | scubadiverr | |
10/7/2023 08:12 | But scuba that is a circular argument. Argentina is poor because it doesn't respect the rule of law and so foreign investment comes at a huge premium. Therefore Argentina shouldn't be bound by the rule of law because it is poor. Hmm... | donald pond | |
09/7/2023 11:13 | A potential problem with this route would surely be that Argentina could later create laws and taxes so that the operation was no longer profitable and that the export of oil was prohibited. If this were to happen the asset wouldn't then be worth what it is today and Argentina wouldn't suffer any real net loss as they'd receive increased tax revenues. The domestic market also could continue to receive cheap oil as it couldn't be sold elsewhere. Such a situation would need to be contractually protected against, but would you trust the Argies not to? I think I'd rather have a deal the oil | scubadiverr | |
08/7/2023 23:20 | Hi 375UV, I like this man's reply : Donald Pond @DonaldPond6 · Jul 7 I guess one distinction between this and the Burford/YPF case is that Argentina seized YPF,a profitable, listed company, and still own half of it I think. They can’t object to selling that holding to pay the obligations incurred by stealing it! ATB | extrader | |
08/7/2023 13:54 | Argentina should sell YPF and use the proceeds to pay out Burford. Argentina wants to have its cake and eat it. The US Courts have seen right through Argentina on this. Hopefully, the US shareholder ownership of Burford went over 50% on 30 June - meaning Burford will become a US co. | stentorian | |
07/7/2023 16:57 | Interesting decision by a London Judge on a different Argentina case. Will the Republic use this same "winning" tactic on Preska? | 375uv |
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