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 Shares Traded Last Trade
  -38.00 -4.52% 802.00 40,671 08:45:54
Bid Price Offer Price High Price Low Price Open Price
801.00 803.00 819.00 800.50 817.00
Industry Sector Turnover (m) Profit (m) EPS - Basic PE Ratio Market Cap (m)
Equity Investment Instruments 112.52 -43.96 -24.40 1,754
Last Trade Time Trade Type Trade Size Trade Price Currency
08:44:57 AT 10 802.00 GBX

Burford Capital (BUR) Latest News

More Burford Capital News
Burford Capital Investors    Burford Capital Takeover Rumours

Burford Capital (BUR) Discussions and Chat

Burford Capital (BUR) Most Recent Trades

Trade Time Trade Price Trade Size Trade Value Trade Type
View all Burford Capital trades in real-time

Burford Capital (BUR) Top Chat Posts

Burford Capital Daily Update: Burford Capital Limited is listed in the Equity Investment Instruments sector of the London Stock Exchange with ticker BUR. The last closing price for Burford Capital was 840p.
Burford Capital Limited has a 4 week average price of 710p and a 12 week average price of 590p.
The 1 year high share price is 911p while the 1 year low share price is currently 590p.
There are currently 218,649,877 shares in issue and the average daily traded volume is 419,672 shares. The market capitalisation of Burford Capital Limited is £1,836,658,966.80.
riverman77: Before anyone gets too excited about the recent mini rally and talks about selling, remember BUR were £15 before the MW attack in 2019 and even by the end of that year had recovered to almost £9. BUR is a much stronger business than it was back then, so makes no sense that the share price still languishing below £9. I'm personally not selling any until we have a resolution to the Peterson case AND seen some of the other big case wins start to come through. This is the only thing that will finally trigger a proper recovery (by which I mean at least back to its prior trading range of £15-20).
somerset lad: BUR's submissions state: “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” “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,” Very happy to be corrected (and DYOR as always - this may contain errors and must not be relied upon for investing or other purposes) but I get the total value of the claims for summary judgment, damages + interest up to 24.9.21: Petersen = $14.227bn. Eton Park = $1.66bn BUR has a 31.5% stake in Petersen and 70% in Eton Park, so BUR's share is: 14.227 x 0.315 + 1.661 x 0.7 = $5.64bn Then we need to add 9% simple interest for a further year assuming that judgment is handed down on 24 September 2022: (0.09 x 0.315 x (7,533 + 133) + 0.09 x 0.7 x 898) @ $274m = $5.914bn. As noted earlier in this thread, BUR has indicated that it is willing to drop the indirect damages claim (and associated interest) if doing so is necessary to get summary judgment on the rest; and BUR recognises that an interest rate below 9% might be chosen as a matter of law as part of a summary judgment. And the suggestion that, if successful, the owners of the claims might choose to sell them at a discount to face value in return for immediate payment seems plausible.
djderry: 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.
djderry: The share price doesn't tell me anything,except what ( a tiny number) of others are prepared to buy or sell the stock at.It's of no interest to me and tells me nothing.I didn't invest for a few big moves upwards in the share price I'll be quite happy to see YPF/ Petersen in the rear view mirror.It's obscuring a business that's in the footills of a long period of uncorrelated growth and profitability.
donald pond: Yes, a very positive announcement. Everything except the share price going in the right direction though I think the share price should be fine from here
lomax99: Google translate:Energetic politicsAfter seven years, the trial for the expropriation of YPF endsThe economic damages associated with an adverse ruling amount to almost 20,000 million dollars, according to documents presented in a New York court on April 14. After seven years, the trial for the expropriation of YPF endsOne of the YPF Gas plants.sebastian marilfifteen05/07/2022 EconomyUpdated on 05/07/2022 21:53In April 2015, two Spanish companies, Petersen Energía Inversora and Petersen Energía, filed a claim in the New York courts against the Argentine State and against YPF related to the decision of the then President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner to nationalize the Argentine oil company.At that time, the Petersen companies owned 25% of the YPF shares that they acquired in 2008 and 2011 using a series of loans granted by the large Wall Street banks and by the also Spanish Repsol.In November 2016, Eton Park Capital, a New York fund and owner of 2.9% of YPF shares, also joined the case. This is how the owners of 28% of the shares not expropriated by the Argentine State began one of the most exciting cases that the US courts have seen in more than three decades.From that moment and to date, the trial for the expropriation of YPF has passed through the Court of the Southern District of New York, by the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, by the Supreme Court of the United States and has returned to the New York court where Judge Loretta Preska will soon decide whether we Argentine taxpayers will have to pay an amount that can reach 19,376 million dollars, according to official calculations presented on April 14 in a court in the Big Apple.It is worth noting that this calculation is not arbitrary, but is derived from a formula that details Article 7, Point F, Section G of the YPF Statute, which was modified by the administration of former President Carlos Menem in the framework of the privatization of YPF. the company in the 1990s.The irresponsible interpretation of international laws by the different Argentine governments has led the country to be sued over and over again by multiple international interests since 2000.The agreement for the debt in default (the so-called "holdouts"), the expropriation of companies such as Aerolineas Argentinas, Aguas Argentinas and YPF, and the asymmetric pesification of dollarized contracts, are just some of the examples that illustrate how the Argentine State does not respects the will of those who decide to invest in our country. These lawsuits have already cost us more than 17,000 million dollars in rulings and/or compensation to injured parties and there are still open and unresolved lawsuits.Economic damages paid by ArgentinaToday, the interest generated by the resolution of the case for the expropriation of YPF in the international investment community is unprecedented. Judge Preska's ruling reveals creditors of Argentine sovereign bonds, shareholders of the oil company and also shareholders of Burford Capital, the company that owns the majority of both lawsuits against the Argentine State.Each of these parties, whether they are debt issuers and/or publicly traded companies, have invested many resources over the past seven years to argue for their interests. American and British funds have bought parts of the litigation and today it is estimated that about 45% of the Petersen and Eton cases are in the hands of private investors and well-known investment funds.Meanwhile, shareholders of Burford Capital and YPF are already beginning to speculate on the impact that the ruling will have on the share price. According to Burford Capital, 85% of the London company's unrealized profits are tied to a favorable resolution of the case. The potential is extraordinary.But, how can it be that Argentina has reached the point of running the risk of having to pay a figure that can reach up to 20,000 million dollars?The answer is based on the previously mentioned irresponsible interpretation of the contracts signed with people and/or companies that choose to invest in the country. When the Argentine Congress in April 2012 voted in favor of nationalizing YPF and expropriating 51% of Repsol's shares, it "forgot" about the remaining 49%.In the business world, when a company undergoes a change of control and new shareholders take over the reins of operations, they are obliged to offer the rest of the shareholders the possibility of buying their holdings in the company through a Public Acquisition Offer. (OPA). In 2012, the then government of Cristina Fernández de Kirchner made public its decision not to exercise this contractual obligation, thus breaching the YPF Statute.Was Argentina, as a sovereign country, obliged to acquire the remaining 49% through a takeover bid? Is the Public Law of our country (Public Interest Law) above the Law that governs corporations? Should the country recognize the Statute of a company like YPF when that Statute forces the State to fail to comply with other existing laws?These answers and many others are the ones that Judge Preska will have to answer in what is expected to be a long ruling starting on June 24. Both parties have presented a long list of experts who have presented their arguments to persuade the Judge, who has already stated that she will "consider" the laws of the Argentine Republic when she makes a decision.Argentina has already suffered rulings or received adverse opinions on four occasions: the Court of Judge Preska (twice), the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court. With a 0-4 down on the "global score", it is unlikely that the Argentine lawyers will be able to reverse this result in stoppage time. However, as long as the case remains open, all is not lost for the country.
noblerotter: Burford Capital Limited, the leading global finance and asset management firm focused on law, today announces the purchase of 29,278 of Burford's ordinary shares of nil par value ("Shares") by Burford Capital LLC in connection with obligations under the Burford employee deferred compensation plan . All of the Shares were purchased on the London Stock Exchange on May 12, 2022 at an average price of 610.9253p per Share.
riverman77: I personally have a bit in MANO as a good counter cyclical play, but much more bullish on BUR. Firstly, BUR has some big cases on its books (not just Petersen) which hopefully should start to come through this year and with any luck catapult the share price higher. MANO on the other hand I see a more steady recovery as they build their cases back up. More importantly, BUR is very well diversified by different types of cases and geographies which reduces risk. MANO is focused on one specific area, so more exposed to specific risks within their niche. You may also want to consider BEG if you want exposure to UK insolvencies (there is also FRP but BEG is a bit cheaper last time I looked).
rar100: Bur have already said earnings/profits will be lower than last year. So many 'ifs' in the Peel Hunt blurb. Yes maybe Bur is cheap - but for a good reason, waiting for 7 years in some cases to reach conclusion - and not knowing whether they win or lose. Well the old adage of gamble only what you are prepared to lose is more apt to Bur than any other Co. that I can think of. It's always jam tomorrow but that day - a bit like IQE never comes along. Like always the share price goes up prior to results and then goes very quickly down after. That's been my experience since holding after the MW attack and took approx 50% loss after 2+ years. Consistent good earnings from a Co. is a much better prospect than 'lumpy' unless of course money is no object and you have many years where you can afford to wait. Mind you like most on this board it is a good trading share, predictable as clockwork, short runups in share price followed by the longer downturns when lth's get fed up and move on.
houseofpain1: Certainly if these current market conditions persist then the share price will go lower but for anyone with a 2 year plus investment horizon this is a time to be adding to Burford. The CMD was transformative for me in that it gave me confidence that the downside is well-underpinned. If the modelling is accurate then there is approximately $3.8bn to come back from the existing ex-YPF portfolio. Taking off gross debt and 3 years' costs reduce that figure to around $2.2bn. That's more than the current market cap. So a negative value is being attributed to Petersen and ongoing/future business. You therefore have an uncorrelated business growing strongly trading at around NAV and on a single digit PE which would return you more than the current market cap if it was put into run off today. Notwithstanding this pretty compelling valuation set up, the shares need a catalyst. Ideally we'll get some good numbers in February/March but, failing that, it seems inevitable that Petersen will, finally, provide that catalyst this year. Assuming that it does not settle, I believe that Burford will win the case. It's pretty straightforward - the by-laws/prospectus set out the steps that had to be followed on a renationalisation of YPF and Argentina didn't follow them. They then settled with one shareholder (Repsol) when they sued them but not Petersen/Eton Park. Whilst anything can happen in litigation, I've spoken to as many bears on the stock as I can so as to try to avoid confirmation bias and not one of them thinks that Burford will lose. Their negative view is predicated on Burford being unable to collect. And Burford may well have a battle on their hands there but it's one they are well-resourced to fight. For my part, I still think it's far from certain that Argentina would ignore a US court order... Let me know what you all think - particularly if you disagree!
Burford Capital share price data is direct from the London Stock Exchange
ADVFN Advertorial
Your Recent History
Burford Ca..
Register now to watch these stocks streaming on the ADVFN Monitor.

Monitor lets you view up to 110 of your favourite stocks at once and is completely free to use.

By accessing the services available at ADVFN you are agreeing to be bound by ADVFN's Terms & Conditions

P: V: D:20220630 08:05:42