Juridica Share Discussion Threads

[eeza] 31/3/2016 17:09

Lol !!!

So: wet, & stick finger in air.

[pugugly] 31/3/2016 12:36

maiken: Good point re one case - I had missed that - Hummmm - on reflection maybe I was too generous with a 39p vaule indication - Of couse if the case succeeds then I am too negative.

However if the case is lost they would need to win all the remaining cases to ensure this was a profitable investment.

[maiken] 31/3/2016 12:05

Mgmt claim they already discount when calculating NAV in effort to be conservative and to reflect risks of binary outcome [win or lose].
50% share price discount on top of that would have me buying.I'm tempted already....it all depends on your appetite for risk
Ongoing expenses have reduced,albeit from excessive levels.
A negative,for me,is it would appear if I've read things correctly that 43% of NAV hinges on one case.

[nw99] 08/3/2016 02:01

Nice move up today

[cockerhoop] 07/3/2016 15:58

SP pretty strong over the last few sessions, anyone aware of any particular reason?

[eeza] 02/3/2016 10:34

Lol !!!!

No.

[tiswas] 02/3/2016 09:47

Whoops, forgot about the link censoring issues. Yes it is the iii discussion board. Are you eagle, eeza?

[eeza] 02/3/2016 09:26

This is the same link as above.



One of his posts:

"You can bet your bottom dollar these new arrangements are designed to ensure there is as little reduction in the volume of your money (given whatever's planned next) going into the pockets of these (imo) disingenuous people. I could have used stronger language but you get the point.

It was kind of the auditors to agree to reduce their annual fees to £100,000 (maybe they'll make up for the 'loss' with a few add-ons?). Given what (imo) they've missed that's been staring them in the face for so long they should be paying the shareholders they're supposed to represent. The horse has now bolted however; the money's gone.

Regardless, half what's now agreed would be too much to charge for the audit of a company this size. The US owned law firm and the secretarial outfit in Guernsey will no doubt keep banging the bills in. What have the non-execs been charging $125k a year for, just for expenses? Maybe they have their meetings in the Ritz (or maybe the George V in Paris - accompanied by their carers of course) and stay on a few days to recover from the stress? But it would have to be a few times a year to explain the amounts involved. "Use of home as office" maybe? Do non-execs have chauffeurs? Do any of them know the Speaker?

Some might say (not me) that entrusting your money to the people in this company is about as sensible as would have been entrusting the well-being of your 14 year old daughter to Fred & Rosemary West.

They haven't yet got away with it. It's taking time, but it's far from over.

Given the following, some might say that what's been allowed to go on here is hypocrisy on the grandest scale - might even be worse than the behaviour exhibited (out of sight of the cameras) by someone who might better be able to explain the disappearance of your money. I have heard it said by some that that turning a blind eye to something one knows is reprehensible (for the money) makes one just as guilty. I couldn't possible comment.

hxxp://catholicunion.org.uk/2014/12/lord-brennan-retirement-dinner/

'Confessions' must be interesting.

"I'm a good man, your honour"...................

[tiswas] 02/3/2016 09:05

Anyone seen any recent research on this?

Some interesting comments here, don't know if eagle posts on this board at all.

[...]

Whilst we have some decent sized fund managers hopefully looking out for shareholders interests it does worry me that management do not seem to have much in the way of shareholdings/incentives to maximise value?

[my retirement fund] 15/2/2016 13:40

Tentative buying volume creeping in again, always a positive sign.

[keyno] 12/2/2016 10:46

Am I right in thinking the ex-wife still holds these? It was soon after the settlement that the shares tumbled. .............

[tiswas] 08/2/2016 11:34

For the financial years to 31 December 2015, the Management Fee has been calculated at a rate of 2% per annum of the adjusted net asset value of the Company at the end of the relevant accounting period. Going forwards, the Company has agreed to pay the Investment Manager a fixed annual Management Fee of US$3,000,000 in respect of the 12 months ended 31 December 2016 and US$1,750,000 in respect of the 12 months ended 31 December 2017. The agreed Management Fee for the year ended 31 December 2016 is an approximate reduction of 33% as compared to the amount that is estimated to have been payable under the IMA prior to the amendment which was based on 2% of adjusted net asset value.

So $3m is a 33% reduction so the original fee would have been $4.5m.

The $4.5m is based on 2% of adjusted nav = $225m.

$225m / 110m shares = $2.04 per share

$2.04/1.44 = £1.41

Where have I gone wrong?

[nw99] 08/2/2016 10:56

Net asset 94pKeep buying then

[speedsgh] 08/2/2016 09:49

tiswas - From today's announcement...

"Pursuant to the Amendment Agreement, the IMA [Investment Management Agreement] shall now automatically terminate on 31 December 2017 unless the Company elects to extend the term of the IMA..."

This would perhaps suggest that they expect the winding up to have been completed by end 2017?

[tiswas] 08/2/2016 08:47

Can anyone help me understand what sort of timescale we are talking about re winding up and return of cash. Struggling with the latest RNS.

[sailing john] 08/2/2016 08:46

Bought in today - several trades

GL - SJ

[nw99] 08/2/2016 08:17

Bought some more this am

[grahamg8] 05/2/2016 17:02

Another possible reason for the rise would be if there has been a settlement of one of the cases. ie turning assets into yet more cash

[nw99] 05/2/2016 16:51

Thanks I am in good story

[cockerhoop] 05/2/2016 09:05

No target....but here's a paragraph

'That’s because Juridica now has 15 cases on its books (consisting of antitrust and competition; patents and intellectual property; and commercial cases), which had a book value of $102.8m (£71.9m) at the end of June 2015. It has committed a maximum of $9.7m to support these cases in the future. In addition, the company has cash and receivables on its balance sheet worth $46.3m, or £32.4m at current exchange rates. This means that with the company’s market capitalisation now only £47.4m, then two-thirds of the share price is backed by cash and receivables (money due for payment on claims awarded in Juridica’s favour). Or, to put it another way, with the company’s shares being priced on less than half last reported net asset value of 94p, of which cash and receivables accounted for 29.5p, then investments in legal cases worth 65p a share are being attributed a value of only 13.5p, or one fifth of their value.'

[guernseymoney] 05/2/2016 09:01

Was this tipped by Simon Thompson in the IC? Does anyone know what target price he had on it, if any?

[tiswas] 05/2/2016 09:00

That explains the jump then. Hardly a share for 2016, hoping to be out within 3 months or so or is that unrealistic?

[cockerhoop] 05/2/2016 08:58

It's also found it's way into the IC's Bargain Portfolio for 2016.