Juridica Share Discussion Threads

[eeza] 23/6/2015 08:09

Mrs Right?

Lolololol.

You is havin' a laff !!!!

[djderry] 22/6/2015 23:58

I like him,I think he's a romantic.Think of Harry Secombe singing 'I believe in love'.Keep at it Richard until you find Mrs.Right.

[eeza] 22/6/2015 20:44

Lol !!!

Hardly surprising he's not rich after 5 wives have all had a bite.

He can obviously resist anything but temptation.

How much is a half, of a half, of a half, of a half, of a half, of a ....

Wot a plonker.

[jonwig] 22/6/2015 14:51

EDIT: I've only just seen today's RNS about this!! Sorry.

srichardson - I've tried, and failed, to find out how many shares in JIL are actually involved here (as opposed to the stake in JCML). The nearest I get is this:

The court devoted some time to arguments as to whether H's pension should be treated as 'net cash' or not. The court found that c.£80k of the £153k pension was 'liquid' (§ 46), the remainder being illiquid shares in JIL: "If a net sum or fund is accessible and able to be spent now, it is, in my view, correctly to be treated as net cash even if it was historically 'pension'" (§ 44).



I can't find your 380k, sorry. And anyway, is it an overhang?

Interesting ...

The total assets amounted to c.£6 million, including H's apartment, W's modest flat in Moscow, various shares in H's business interests, and H's pension of c.£153,000.

He's not a rich man at £6m (the joint assets) or less, but he seems to be a big spender and has plans for marriage no. 6.

[srichardson8] 22/6/2015 12:37

shame about the 380k share overhang now or can it be placed probably at a decent discount?
or is she going to hold shares in her ex's company? think not.

[srichardson8] 22/6/2015 12:35

but asmodeus takes the cake and eats it too

[djderry] 22/6/2015 11:45

That RNS last week didn't do the former Mrs.Fields any favours,the timing of which was just bad luck,allegedly!

[speedsgh] 19/6/2015 19:06

Will be see what Liberum have to say following yesterday's news. This was their take after results just 3 months ago.

[speedsgh] 19/6/2015 19:02

great post, jonwig.

[jonwig] 19/6/2015 18:57

A number of comments have been made here about the high fees ... does law come cheap?

The fact that they've had one large hit (and one small) in five years tells me that their costs have been worthwhile. Some litigation funders were founded and went bust because they skimped on legal due diligence.

And shareholders not rewarded? A holder since the IPO at 100p will have collected 59p in dividends and suffered a 10p capital loss. Saying this isn't brilliant is using the wisdom of hindsight - the point is that it's diversification and non-correlation. An option against an equity market rout, if you like.

These aren't excuses, they will have to learn from what went wrong here. And the fact that the next continuation vote is in December 2016 will help concentrate minds.

I'm sure a discount to NAV will be the prevailing situation here for a long time - it always happens when an asset-backed company such as Propco, IT, stumbles.

[woozle1] 19/6/2015 16:36

The problem with this investment is that you're putting money into a black box and no one really understands how each case works and the probability of favourable outcomes. And that's coupled with a hedge fund style fee structure. That means only a sensible discount to NAV is a realistic entry point.

[asmodeus] 19/6/2015 16:08

As Mr(W.C.)Fields said - " the time has come to grab the bull by the tail, and face the situation".

[speedsgh] 19/6/2015 12:49

I see Mr Fields has been making the headlines for all the wrong reasons again.

Are pre-nups better than airing your dirty laundry in court? -

After less than an hour, Mr Justice Holman had heard enough. Presiding over a bitter divorce fight between Ekaterina Fields, a statuesque Russian former beauty queen, and her US lawyer husband Richard Fields, the High Court judge heard them fighting over assets including a Manhattan flat, shares and a Steinway baby grand piano.

Exasperated, Mr Justice Holman ordered the court to take a short break to see if there was any “bridgeable gap” for settlement talks between the couple.

“I warned how destructive all this could be. I used the word destructive more than once two days ago . . . I have done everything I possibly can to try and prevent this case going on like this,” the judge told the couple last month.

Mr Fields, 59, who had been married five times and Ms Fields, 42, who was previously married to a banker and is a former Miss World University, were arguing about the division of about £6m of assets; a dispute set to cost the couple £1m in legal fees. Last week, the judge eventually awarded Mrs Fields £3.35m...

[speedsgh] 19/6/2015 12:39

The other aspect which appeals is its low beta to wider market movements.

[neilyb675] 19/6/2015 12:25

Agreed. My position is small, but I like the diversity and its an unusual play.

[guernseymoney] 19/6/2015 12:20

"I think it an over-reaction but by the same token I am not yet inclined to add more............watching waiting for now"

DITTO - I am still bullish, such price swings come with the territory - the overall picture remains the same - there is so much "noise" in the markets these days.

[speedsgh] 19/6/2015 11:59

Will not be adding but only because am already at max allocation, otherwise would be. As unpleasant as last night's rns + the subsequent share price reaction was, it is the nature of the JIL beast + something I am comfortable with. The investment has served me well over the last 4yrs seeing as I am predominantly income focused. GLTA

[neilyb675] 19/6/2015 11:49

I think it an over-reaction but by the same token I am not yet inclined to add more............watching waiting for now

[ben12358] 19/6/2015 11:48

Stuff does and did happen but a single judgement taking out so high a % of nav? It feels similar to a business with too few clients to me. The 2% + 20% performance fee seems to show a hedge fund attitude to investors. Do they take 20% of any loss as well? Sorry i am a little negative today....

[neilyb675] 19/6/2015 11:31

"The Company is entitled to approximately 28% of the first US$100 million of any award or settlement, and approximately 26% above those amounts. The current NAV contains only US$5.8 million for this case based on the low end of the range of possible settlement values. A successful trial verdict and damage award will have a significant positive impact on NAV."

[pugugly] 19/6/2015 11:30

jonwig:> I must be blind but cannot see it. Only references appear to be

"The cumulative effect of the developments detailed in this announcement may result in an estimated reduction to the NAV of as much as approximately US$26.8 million (approximately 15.6 pence per ordinary share)".

"The Company expects to publish its accounts and an updated NAV for its portfolio as soon as possible in the third quarter of 2015"

I was going from the figure in the accounts of Net asset value per ordinary share $1.6636 deducting the impairment uS Cents 23 (approx) to give $1.43 which at exchange $1.58 produces 90.5p less my suggested 20% risk adjustment.

[jonwig] 19/6/2015 11:12

PUG - the RNS has a number, towards the end.

They've also promised a Q3 update with numbers "as soon as possible".

I'd imagine this is now trading at around 10% discount to true NAV, which is about the same as it did in the early days of sub-80p.

Actually, I tried to sell at open today, but no online quote, so I put in 95p F/K which failed so I let it be. This isn't a "dump at any price".

Ben (post #687): the NAV is calcultated on a basis of probable outcomes - it's described in annual reports. So even if we assume they are pretty cautious, we still have to accept that "stuff happens".

[pugugly] 19/6/2015 10:52

Has anyone crunched the likely new nav per share. i have had a try and come out at about 90p - However I suspect that this should be discounted by at least 20% to factor in uncertaintly of judgements in the US legal system.

Any verification of my back of an envelope calculations and comments ??

[my retirement fund] 19/6/2015 09:57

The only people getting rich here are the Board and the Lawyers.

[ben12358] 19/6/2015 09:03

Why wasnt there any provision for at least part of the the 18p nav per share loss, within the way the nav was calculated to cushion the blow? (Or was there?) I'm out just because their nav calculation method just doesn't seem to be conservative enough. Do they look for it to support the share price and calculate nav backwards from there?