Burford Capital Share Discussion Threads

[stentorian] 27/7/2023 00:52

Seb Maril "- Argentina "admitted" that the damages are USD 4.900 M; Burford asks for USD 16,100 M."

[maddox] 26/7/2023 22:22

Just to add to djderry's account.

The plaintiff lawyer (ours) tried to introduce by way of the Expert Witness a number of statements by Argentine Minister of State - stating 16 April as the date of expropriation (of Repsol's shares). The defendant's lawyer objected but they were taken 'for what they were worth'.

Comes down to - Argentina effectively took control and exercised the rights of the shares on 16 April - but the shares were not formally transferred until much later. So the judge has latitude to come down on either side of the argument - natural justice/punish unfair dealing on the one side or save the children from rapacious litigation funders on the other.

BTW Skype worked well for me - a bit quiet but audible.

[syoun2] 26/7/2023 21:12

Unfortunately just getting an engaged signal for last 30 mins

[djderry] 26/7/2023 21:04

No,it's still in full swing.
My take on it,for what it's worth.
Don't pursue a career in law,it will turn one's brain to porridge.( I digress)
1.The defendants opening was pretty ramshackle. At one stage I thought their counsel started to sound like Chris Bogart at a share webcast.Judge,they want 16 billion for a 15 million dollar investment! He went so far as to say ,if Burford won,it would be the greatest investment in the last 20 years.
I kid you not.
We then got the ' think of the poor children' argument,do you know how much Burford are looking for,16 Billion!,meanwhile this is what the Republic spent on education last year...
Obviously,lots of arguments put forward, among the more bizzare was ' at least Argentina got shares in YPF when we paid them five billion,we're getting nothing here,and they still want 16 billion!
Second round,plaintiffs and their expert.'When did Argentina take control?'Expert: 16th April 2012.
Repeat by 20.
How do we know? Expert; well,they cancelled ( well,postponed forever!) shareholder meeting for 23rd April so they had control.Also,they got rid of all the Repsol board.
Repeat ad infinitum.
Round three.
Defendants object to plaintiff's Expert giving opinion on stuff he previously said he knew nothing about.Judge says,OK,we'll listen to it ' for what it's worth'.
Defendants; Hold on a minute,this is new territory, it wasn't disclosed in discovery.Judge seems to agree.
Score so far ,2-1 to Burford.

[lazg] 26/7/2023 19:51

Could someone summerize the hearing, I was unable to make it until now, and it seems to be over.

[chester9] 26/7/2023 19:29

I do not hold LIT just BUR

[three black crows] 26/7/2023 18:43

Thought you meant lit in general,I would top up rather that panicmy friend

[chester9] 26/7/2023 18:41

LIT down 19% today

[three black crows] 26/7/2023 18:28

Hammered lit ?What do you mean, I haven't seen lit being hammered ?

[dagoberia] 26/7/2023 16:31

does anyone know if this DBA supreme court ruling that has hammered LIT today will affect BUR?

[three black crows] 26/7/2023 11:45

Iaconic,Yes fully agreed, they have a history of this and elections coming in October

[1aconic] 26/7/2023 11:08

Adding to Donald's list, refuse to negotiate. If you think the tender price is too high, negotiate an alternative. If you think the award is too high, negotiate a settlement. Plaintiffs have been clear they're open to it. Don't keep paying millions to lawyers (that could be used to help the population) on top of the negotiated settlement. Arg's filings are just propoganda playing to the domestic audience. Pure politics.

[three black crows] 26/7/2023 10:25

News in ......https://news.bloomberglaw.com/business-and-practice/burford-capital-eyes-billions-in-payout-for-argentina-lawsuit

[chester9] 26/7/2023 09:15

That made me chuckle, very good.

[stentorian] 26/7/2023 09:05

They talk about a "drought" - yet, all of their legal arguments are under water.

[donald pond] 26/7/2023 09:00

The inability to pay argument is very weak. When YPF was floated it had all the protections that Burford are now relying upon precisely because nobody trusted Argentina. It is important to remember that they sold off YPF, so got well paid for it, then seized it back. They then paid off Repsol but not the other holders. Then they delayed and denied liability for 8 years. At every step they could have avoided and/or reduced their liability. Don't list YPF on the NYSE, don't put it protective clauses, don't seize it, don't ignore the protective clauses, don't delay etc. The idea in a contract case that you can spend tens of millions on legal fees and then plead poverty is nonsense.

[bjfanc] 26/7/2023 08:56

From FT article a few days ago.Natural gas from the world's second-largest shale gas reserve in Patagonia will reach Buenos Aires in the coming weeks through a new pipeline, marking a milestone in Argentina's push to become a big gas exporter despite its economic turmoil.The reserve contains 8.7tn cubic meters of gas and 16.2bn barrels of oil. Production is led by state energy company YPF.

[this tea tastes of chicken] 26/7/2023 08:29

Perhaps the poor populace will be mindful in future of the people who hold the purse strings.

If I were the China BRICS Axis I would use this statement against ARG when considering whether to let them into their commie populace robbing cartel.

[madharry3] 26/7/2023 07:54

That defence of being too poor to pay seems ridiculous to me. that might work for a homeless person stealing a loaf of bread from the supermarket. I doubt it will work for a sovereign country stealing a multibillion dollar oil company, and then refusing to provide compensation for a dozen years.

[djderry] 26/7/2023 03:16

There's been a flurry of activity in the Petersen docket.I think it's becoming clear that one axis of the defence will be to plead an inability to pay and the subsequent effects of a judgement on the already precarious position of the populace.
It seems somewhat outside the remit of the case but I am not a lawyer.
It also seems clear from the list of exhibits that another axis will be to attack Plaintiff's standing,pointing to Burford's backing and its healthy cash flows. Again,I don't see this as particularly relevant.
Defendants have even included Burford's announcement of its reaction to the summary judgement. Again,I would not see how the Republic could take issue with anything in it.It was mostly an invite to negotiate,in my view.
The' inability to pay' defence,if that is what it is,might be an argument to reduce the applicable interest rate to zero but that would fly in the face of making the damaged parties whole.

[chester9] 25/7/2023 21:40

Odd to seek sympathy when deliberately stalling a case for so many years after stealing a company. Mercy of the Judge

[chester9] 25/7/2023 21:37

From Seb with thanksArgentina quoting the drought The contested exhibits in this category not only speak to the potential impact on the Republic of additional billions in damages, (See DXs 68-7, 147-150, 153, 155, 178), but also why the Republic intervened in YPF, (DX 158), and that any award will come at the expense of an Argentine populace suffering from a very challenging economy, made worse by drought (See DXs 153, 179).Second, now that Plaintiffs are claiming that the prejudgment interest award shouldreflect Plaintiffs' missed economic opportunities, (Pls' Br. at 2), the Republic should be permitted to submit exhibits demonstrating that the enormous windfall award will largely accrue to litigation

[stentorian] 25/7/2023 18:04

13:00 hrs in New York - 18:00 hrs in London