Burford Capital Share Discussion Threads

[loglorry1] 15/3/2022 10:20

Only you donald would see a delay as possibly meaning a settlement.

[donald pond] 15/3/2022 09:58

https://twitter.com/sebastianmaril/status/1503665956836585481?s=212 week delay. I wonder why? There's always a chance parties have agreed because settlement is close and they want to focus on that

[williamcooper104] 14/3/2022 19:42

Interesting Always thought Argentina was a basket case economy; but of course there's a lot of wheat in that basket + other commodities Latin America: region benefits from new commodity supercycle https://on.ft.com/3i76Dz3

[papy02] 14/3/2022 17:51

They’ve explained in the past that the nominal dividend is to avoid being automatically excluded from some fund mandates?

[tnt99] 14/3/2022 17:26

All the Russian shenanigans should make for a lot of large cases to be provided for burford to conclude might even be able to get a few large yatchs out of it ? Payouts

[williamcooper104] 13/3/2022 23:49

$24m is more than the initial investment in Peterson (IIRC) It is inconsequential in terms of anyones BUR shareholder return Thus no point paying it

[maddox] 13/3/2022 21:21

Hi planit,

BUR had $300m cash in-hand at the year-end, plus additional capacity in their managed funds. They also have access to the US debt market - they raised $400 last March. Hopefully, we'll see an acceleration in realisations, as the Covid impact wanes, but they managed $236m in the year.

So, their cash position is strong and the dividend pay-out of c. $24m is inconsequential in the overall picture.

[williamcooper104] 11/3/2022 12:43

Yep; that's always a risk Hence why always thought it was silly for Bur to ever pay a dividend

[planit2] 11/3/2022 11:58

We are at the beginning of this cycle so expect all this craziness to continue. There are stresses in the system all over the place and individual actors will be making decisions that will cause litigation.

I just feel this general environment is going to bring up all sorts of opportunities for Burford. The only downside might be the capital requirements of expanding operations.

Anyone got any views on this, could we end up in a situation where business is good but the markets are worried about Burford's ability to generate cash?

[divmad] 11/3/2022 09:12

What on earth was the UK business department thinking when it allowed a Chinese Communist Party-controlled entity to take over the LME?

[donald pond] 11/3/2022 08:22

At the risk of boring people, the short was taken out by a Chinese company that is the worlds biggest nickel producer. The counterpart is believed to be a western commodity dealer, with some naming GLEN. If the deal had been upheld it would have bankrupted 1 or 2 medium sized Chinese banks and the counterparty had allegedly offered to accept the mine as well in part settlement. So it is going to be a huge case. And there will be hundreds of other claimants. Feels like it has BURs name all over it to me

[donald pond] 11/3/2022 07:28

The Chinese owned LME cancelled billions in trades after a Chinese whale got caught with a short losing a fortune. Now that trader wants to go short again. There is already talk of litigation by those who lost as a result of cancelled trades, and the sums involved will be astronomical. I would have thought that is tailor made for Burford.

[syoun2] 10/3/2022 16:44

No chance for 2 reasons. Firstly what you said & secondly they would find it themselves

[williamcooper104] 10/3/2022 15:59

Conflicted on this one in that there's likely to be legal challenges to sanctions/freezing, and sanctioned individuals need litigation finance, but the negative PR from representing Putins cronies could be seriously bad newsPlus between assets been frozen and ultimately seized governments have time to create new/tighten old laws to legitimise seizing Many oligarch assets were looted anyways; it's just that the Russian people can't really sue for them

[time_traveller] 10/3/2022 15:14

I foresee a lucrative bit of copy and paste for burford - the looming expropriation of airliners from lessors (mainly Irish). A fortune at stake, but also with plenty of O&G revenues and seized foreign currency reserves to stake a claim on - and quite likely Western governments receptive to a far more expeditod legal process .. I see they're also trying the 'pay in worthless local currency" angle, for all the good it'll do them. And for the Petersen case, an absolutely unthinkable time to be giving a green light to state expropriation.

[this tea tastes of chicken] 10/3/2022 08:31

If they have any aces up their sleeve Trevor then the disclosure window is closing. We must not get matters of judgement and settlement confused or clouded.

[nigelmoat] 09/3/2022 07:53

SP in states up 5% last night.

[alfredomega] 09/3/2022 07:50

I have been reading the tweets of that Jarre. I wouldn't take their arguments as very objective.

[trevor777] 08/3/2022 21:07

Read that transcript. Very helpful context - thank you. I'm not a lawyer but the arguments put forwards by YPF and Argentina seem to rely heavily on the principle of exemption from contractual obligation as they are acting as a sovereign nation. This is 2016 - subsequent to which the SD of NY, Appeals and Supreme courts in the US have listened to and ruled against them whilst they make this point. Although in the context of jurisdictional adjudication here, I find it hard to believe they will now add sufficient weight to this point of law (even if Argentinian law) to allow them off the hook on the central issue. Perhaps they have some other aces up their sleeves? How Petersen ended up with the shares in the first place seems highly irregular to me but not sure how the defense could weave that into anything helpful. Thoughts anyone?

[loglorry1] 08/3/2022 19:23

Deep-fried ones are crispy. Don't deep fry a squib though it will blow up your kitchen.

[kannerwas] 08/3/2022 19:13

I think most squids are damp

[rar100] 08/3/2022 18:55

Lomax99

I'll do as I please so don't waste your time telling me to move on. Why make things personal? I'm just a ex-shareholder that ran out of patience.

I think it's a shame that BUR has suffered in the markets for so long, maybe things will turn around one day but circa 2.5 years of stagnation in share price was just too long so I sold at 50% loss.

They have issued a profit warning again... That clinched my decision to sell up, but I will follow this board to see what happens in the future and maybe re-invest - as I think many people have done but still take an interest.

They have been unlucky with the MW attack, then Covid slowing down court process and they make mistakes (like us all). The US flotation was a damp squid for instance.

I hope for Russian Revolution mark 2, it's about time...

[houseofpain1] 08/3/2022 12:49

To be fair, donald, it's not something they're only raising now. I don't know if you have access to the case docket but, if you do, suggest reading the transcript of the hearing in August 2016 regarding Argentina's motion to dismiss: hxxps://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.440752.61.0.pdf

I appreciate that this is just a procedural hearing and not a full trial but, unless discovery has thrown up something out of leftfield, I think it gives a good idea of what the respective arguments will be come summary judgement applications/trial.