Juridica Share Discussion Threads

[tiswas] 07/9/2016 12:17

Have I missed the payment date for the divi somewhere? I see it says shareholders on the register 16/9 but when paid?

[neilyb675] 07/9/2016 10:37

I'll be holding too and taking dividend payment in cash rather than shares imvhpo.

[speedsgh] 07/9/2016 10:02

All interesting stuff, guys. I certainly won't be adding to my existing holding but, barring a significant change in the outlook, I currently expect to hold until final payout + winding up of the company. GLTA

[hpcg] 07/9/2016 09:55

speedsgh - that would account for the delta in Simon Thompson's analysis, that the settlement was a net cash figure to be taken at face value. I think almost everyone here, but definitely not absolutely everyone, can appreciate that the NAV is an estimate which can be wrong in either direction. Management has done some risk weighting but the exact final return to shareholders will not be known until the company has wound up. In that sense a "right" price to buy is difficult to conclude. A safe price would be at or below current cash.

[sogoesit] 07/9/2016 09:55

speedsgh quote:
"A lot seems to ride on how accurate these fair value estimates turn out to be; one would like to think that they have erred on the side of caution with their valuations."

The law and the legal system has been compared to a lottery.
Fair values are, at best, a guess in a lottery as much as the returns on this investment for me is a guess. They are not accurate but are an indication.

It's a high risk high reward venture and I'm looking for "excess returns" to surprise me. The corollary is that I will not be surprised if they don't.
I therefore hold for the payout to December 2017.

Good luck (needed)!

[speedsgh] 07/9/2016 09:24

A lot would appear to hinge on the excess reserves relating to Case 5308-U which the company expects to be paid out no later Q3 2017...

"During the six-month period ended 30 June 2016, Case 5308-U (which was one of the six underlying cases in our single antitrust and competition investment) reached a final settlement generating gross proceeds of US$69.1 million. As per the terms of the Company's investment arrangement, the law firm that is counterparty to this investment is required to set aside reserves for taxes and contingencies resulting from the settlement or other matters related to the investment. After netting out these reserves, WHICH WERE LARGER THAN WE EXPECTED, a total of US$46.0 million was delivered to the Company in July 2016 (and has been included as a receivable in the Statement of Financial Position at 30 June 2016). Additional proceeds MAY be delivered to the Company once actual tax returns are filed (which is expected no later than third quarter 2017) and again once all contingencies are cleared. The expected release of excess reserves is reflected in the remaining valuation of our antitrust and competition investment. The final amount of excess reserves that may be released COULD VARY SIGNIFICANTLY from the estimate we have developed."

AFAICS they have not published an explicit value put on the excess reserves which is unhelpful but the fair value of all Debt Securities (which includes Case 5308-U) as at 30/6/16 has been estimated at USD 10.5m. The fact that the reserves finally released "could vary significantly" from their current estimate could of course be either very positive or very negative so this doesn;t provide much reassurance.

The company also has 7 remaining investments in Contractual Interests; fair value of these as at 30/6/16 has been estimated at USD 10.4m (down from USD 29.4m as at 31/12/15).

A lot seems to ride on how accurate these fair value estimates turn out to be; one would like to think that they have erred on the side of caution with their valuations.

[spob] 07/9/2016 09:00

Yes i know speedsgh

but we've gone from a small discount to a 45% discount in one day

[speedsgh] 07/9/2016 08:51

Surely the large discount merely reflects that the market does not believe that shareholders will receive anywhere near the 26p remaining NAV once the 32p dividend (i.e. return of capital) has been paid out.

How realistic are the latest NAV assumptions on the remaining cases? How much of the NAV will be swallowed up by management/other fees?

In essence the market no longer appears to trust what the company is saying.

[spob] 07/9/2016 08:20

Well my holding after the divi will be relatively small within the context of my overall portfolio, so happy to take the small risk

[spooky] 07/9/2016 08:18

It gets a little tighter when you include the running costs for the final 18 months, not sure it's worth the bother.

[spob] 07/9/2016 08:17

yes a 20% disc now

which changes to 45% after the 32p dividend

[davebowler] 07/9/2016 08:15

EventJuridica's interim results for the period to 30 June show a -21.5% NAV total return for the period to 30 June 2016, in Sterling terms NAV total return is -14.3%.  As the company's assets are denominated in US dollars, we estimated a c. 1% NAV boost following the sharp fall in Sterling following the UK referendum result. The decline in NAV is substantially attributable to a net unrealised loss of US$23.8m generated by a write down in investment valuations. Total comprehensive loss for the period is $27.2m, $0.2467 or 19p per share. As at the end of June, 13 active investments remain in the portfolio; five involving litigation, four patent cases and four concerning collateral, settlements or investments in entities tied to litigation. In respect of the litigation cases, revaluation followed 2 litigation investments being written off over the period contributing a realised loss of $800,000 to the total comprehensive loss figure; a further two investments received adverse primary decisions and are being appealed. For the patent cases valuations depend on market conditions and have been adjusted accordingly. The main valuation movements were a result of the reassessment of the timing and probability a successful resolution of the remaining investments. Two significant cases were settled over the period, as announced in April. These generated total net proceeds of $46.5m. These were the final two cases in the anti-trust and competition investment, one case reached settlement during trial, resulting in gross proceeds of $69.1m; net proceeds of $46m were received in July. A partial settlement was reached in the other resulting in gross proceeds of $600,000; $500,000 of which was received in July 2016, with the final $100,000 expected before December 2017.  Liberum viewThe company adopted a run off strategy in November 2015, having concluded that the company as it is currently structured does not allow it the scale and complexity required to continue invest in the sector, the company does not allow reinvestment of returns and it has been unable to access significant capital.   Under the run off strategy the fund will make no further investments and manage existing investments to their conclusion before returning capital to shareholders. It is hoped that the that the remaining cases in the portfolio will be resolved and monetised by December 2017.    We calculate a c.30% NAV total return from inception to 30 June 2016. Following the receipt of $46.5m net proceeds from the two cases outlined above, the company has declared 32p dividend per share, ex-date 15 September 2016. Taking this dividend into account, total NAV return will be c. 62% from inception.Having been up 59% since the start of 2016, the company's share price fell sharply following the publication of these results, closing down 32% yesterday. The company now trades at a c. 20% discount to the 30 June NA

[spob] 07/9/2016 08:07

After the 32p dividend, the discount to NAV will be around 45% (@ 46.25p)

[spob] 07/9/2016 08:06

Given that 67% of my holding will be returned in a few weeks, i have decided to double my holding this morning.

[my retirement fund] 06/9/2016 22:41

Ahh yes he was probably responsible for many an unseasoned mug punter with his many Chinese AIM tips over the last several years, practically all of which turned out to be frauds.

[jamtin] 06/9/2016 22:31

ST also tipped Naibu literally days before it stopped paying a dividend and collapsed like so many other Chinese AIM stocks. I have been very skeptical of his nose for risk ever since.

[kpwf] 06/9/2016 21:41

In his article ST indicated that JIL would receive $65.8m from the settlement of the two cases and that this would be reflected in the June accounts. In the event the Company has only received $46.5m net. That's a massive difference and explains why the cash balance is much less than the 58.5p per share which he estimated.

[my retirement fund] 06/9/2016 21:15

Another one of his shocking lack of research LAS where anyone would be able to see the complete lack of fair corporate governance renders it uninvestable.

[my retirement fund] 06/9/2016 21:05

ST seems to have a long track record of tipping things where it is clear he has been lazy and put a complete lack of due diligence into historic events. LMS Capital was one recent balls up and I think his tact in glossing over his mistake later was simply to support a failing greedy board and claim the share still offered value.

I'm guessing he'll do the same when this sells of to 30 pence.

[kpwf] 06/9/2016 20:14

I do hope that ST will comment about this in his article tomorrow rather than sweep it under the carpet. The facts are that reported NAV at 30th June of 58p is less than just the cash balance which ST forecasted in his recent article (58.5p)and that forecast was based on cases which had already settled. So, bearing in mind that the remaining investment portfolio still has some value in the accounts, this means that the cash balance is much less than ST estimated. This requires some explanation.

[eeza] 06/9/2016 19:50

Your opinion is worth the same as ST's - or anyone else's.

[rathair] 06/9/2016 19:43

Its a bit undervalued now then dare I say it?

[rathair] 06/9/2016 19:40

Oh well it just goes to show there are no free lunches then.
I bought at about 61p but it rose quite quickly then to about 70p and I sold the lot at 69p a profit in the hand is better than a ST tip it seems.

[holts] 06/9/2016 19:34

The nav being an assumption of returns which can and have quickly dissolved .

[rathair] 06/9/2016 19:33

But its very poor assessment and opinion all the same.