London South East prides itself on its community spirit, and in order to keep the chat section problem free, we ask all members to follow these simple rules. In these rules, we refer to ourselves as "we", "us", "our". The user of the website is referred to as "you" and "your".
By posting on our share chat boards you are agreeing to the following:
The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. As a user you agree to any information you have entered being stored in a database. You agree that we have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic or board at any time should we see fit. You agree that we have the right to remove any post without notice. You agree that we have the right to suspend your account without notice.
Please note some users may not behave properly and may post content that is misleading, untrue or offensive.
It is not possible for us to fully monitor all content all of the time but where we have actually received notice of any content that is potentially misleading, untrue, offensive, unlawful, infringes third party rights or is potentially in breach of these terms and conditions, then we will review such content, decide whether to remove it from this website and act accordingly.
Premium Members are members that have a premium subscription with London South East and have access to Premium Chat. You can subscribe here.
London South East does not endorse such members, and posts should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Ltd, or its affiliates.
From Burford's filing, I particularly like:
Argentina has made no secret of its strategy in this case — to “delay” judgement “as much as
That is financially sensible for Argentina, which has also intimated that it expects
ultimately to face a multi-billion dollar liability in this case.2
footnote 2 being:
2 See Statement of Axel Kicillof before Comisiones de Minería, Energía y Combustibles y de
Presupuesto y Hacienda of Argentine Senate, Mar. 13, 2014, at 31 (acknowledging the offer process
required under the bylaws and taking view that, at the time of the takeover, 51% of the company would
have merited a $10 billion offer); Guillermo Nielsen, Las elecciones y el futuro de la diplomacia
financiera argentina, El Cronista (Feb. 14, 2019), https://bit.ly/31cZmXj (current YPF President
Great find FFCmember, this just keeps getting better by the day, cheers ffc.
Courtesy of Bestace from over on the Blue board . another good reason to delay !
Burford's filing: Https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.440752/gov.uscourts.nysd.440752.164.0.pdf Argentina's filing: Https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.440752/gov.uscourts.nysd.440752.165.0.pdf It is not in dispute that the New York court will have to apply Argentine law to this case. Reading the Argentine submission, they are not looking to rehash the FNC motion, rather they are arguing that regardless of the forum, under Argentine law the plaintiffs may lack standing to bring a claim, and that issue should be resolved before the merits of the plaintiffs' case is considered. Argentina have put forward these arguments before, indeed the arguments they advanced yesterday are remarkably similar to those which they advanced 12 months ago in docket nos. 91 and 100, for example. Despite what Petersen's lawyers are claiming ("the Court has already considered carefully and ruled on [these motions] decisively"), as far as I can see the court has not previously considered these arguments in detail, whether as part of the FNC motions or the earlier FSIA arguments. Indeed Judge Preska declared that all those other proceedings "shall be held in abeyance pending the resolution of the FNC Motions" (docket no. 106). Notwithstanding the above, Petersen's lawyers sum up the Argentine strategy rather succinctly: "The reality is that Argentina approaches its numerous foreign litigation encounters in a very clear-eyed and consistent way: it seeks to arbitrage lower pre-judgment interest rates against its own higher cost of borrowing. This is not unique to this case; it is a recurring pattern of conduct, and it makes sense, because the yields on Argentine debt are much higher than New York’s prejudgment interest rate. It is worth literally hundreds of millions of dollars to Argentina to slow walk this case."
You are preaching to the converted there Jammy
I was very successful with my little trading pot between 12 and 16 and only 10% of my pot but this is not the time ...
To much news pending imo
Perhaps "Such a large egg" would be more accurate as Burford does have many eggs in its portfolio, which is why if the SP were to half on an unfavorable YPF outcome I would see this an an opportunity
That's the problem with having too many eggs in one basket, although if you don't have any eggs in the first place you're not going to get any home.
If the SP did half on an unfavorable YPF outcome it would be an opportunity to double up IMO as it would be a massive irrational overreaction by the market.
On the volitility, while we are at a painful point technically, due I believe to trading, if you hold a long-term investment holding and a smaller trading tranche this can be a great feature to improve your lot.
Come on Burford Get this dual listing sorted please !
A victory in the Petersen case will give us a massive amount of pennies for future "investments which will benefit those of us that are long ! Of course it will move the sp on to a higher level ? and should then press on from there, but make no mistake it will also create more volatility whist the short term "investors" enter and exit for a while !!! Sadly I believe it will also create expectations going forward that will continue to attract the impatient ! Fine by me as Burford will become the 7-10 billion company I believe I will see in my lifetime (possibly more) ,
What I do hope is the sp presses on enough to ward off any unwanted takeover bids !!!
That said ,it would unfortunately half our sp in the unlikely event that the Petersen case was lost
I can understand FFC reluctance to follow every burford case ok, but really the YPF case could at the very least double your money, and these cases are BILLION dollar lawsuit cases, burford have only a few of these big lawsuit cases at the moment,
I think Argentina's case as all about stalling proceedings to its maximum, and burford is all about stalling them stalling, burfords case was in my eyes won when Argentina settled with REPSOL for $5 billion in 2014 , why didn't the same lawyers asked for that discovery they want now way back when they had REPSOL in court, or why didn't Argentina sue for that money back if they thought they made a information discovery mistake, surely JUDGE Preska should see this as purely a new stalling tactic by Argentina's legal team , with very little or no merit, and see burfords as a tactic to for not wishing to waste the courts precious time, or can JUDGE Preska carry out both discoveries at the same time, in that case Argentina will only have won in as much as by delaying paying a settlement for a bit longer, surely a very well educated judge can look at the repsol case and see straight through Argentina's delaying tactics, my only concern is the state of Argentina's crippling debt levels by the time we get our winning judgment.
Thank you Sebastian very much , every bit of information helps to finish this jigsaw of a case, cheers .
And this is exactly why I'm very happy not to know about every case that Burford funds lol
I guess the powers that be in Argentina are more than happy to prolong the agony not least in the hope that the judgement wont come on their watch !!!!
Good AM. Here is my reply to an email I received this morning from one member of this forum hope it helps. On the Spanish litigation, it seems that Argentina and YPF are not going to go down this row in Judge's Preska Court, at least yet. The did not mention that litigation on last night's filing.
Good morning. Late last night, Argentina and YPF filed a joint letter to Judge Preska expressing their concern about BUR’s desire to proceed towards a Fact Discovery that will lead to a Summary Judgement request early next year.
Both plaintiffs have now put forward their proposal as to how to proceed and they have informed the court that Argentina and YPF will seek Discovery ONLY on the aspects of Argentine Law (whether Argie law trumps NY Law).
Judge Preska will now decide (perhaps as early as next week) whose proposal to accept.
Should she choose BUR’s, this case will end by late 2Q21 and a new phase, which will put both sides in a negotiation table where a payment will be decided, will start. However, most likely Argentina and YPF will question the Judge’s Order to end the case through a Summary Judgement. This perhaps may include an appeal although I cannot confirm with certainty that this specific Order can be appealed after what it would be then six years of litigation.
Nevertheless, Argentina said late last night that if Judge Preska sides with BUR’s Discovery request, it will appeal and further seek additional legal channels before allowing BUR to commence its Discovery.
It will be interesting how Judge Preska reacts to Argentina’s latest filings when she issues her upcoming order.
Let me know if you need any further information or opinion.
Yes I also thank you sebastian, that is so informative, and so kind of you to explain all that in your post, next week will be a rollercoaster ride with the American market down yet again and decision day from judge Preska, though Burfords share price hasn't really factored in any win yet, and the shares are cheaply priced as it is, with hopefully a very limited downside.
thanks again and cheers to you Sebastian .
Thank you Mr Sebastián Maril. It is nice to have an analysis of the case on here to clarify the situation and provide more depth. It would be great to here from you again; have you also been following the case via the Spanish courts? Do you think Argentina will have much luck with the appeal in the commercial courts over the rights issue and hows the case has is being financed ...
No problem. Good to hear you have posted somewhere else!!!
Very pleased to see your post. Hope you don't mind but I've cut and pasted your post to ADVFN where I'm sure it will be positively received. Thanks for getting in touch??
I'm the executive whose name appears on La Nación article. Argentina, as of 6pm Eastern Time, has not yet presented its Discovery plans. They must do so before midnight. In any case, BUR did the right thing today. I believe they are 95% sure that this case will land on their side and were certain that, if Judge Preska had accepted a Summary Judgement petition sometime this month or next, they would have encountered industrial amounts of red tape from Argentina before BUR could see a single cent. This is why Chris Bogart on Wednesday said that "we expect this case to wrap up by mid 2021". Instead of seeking a Summary Judgment today, they went ahead and, very smartly I will add, asked the Judge to grant them a Discovery petition and make sure that all the red tape Argentina was expected to file to avoid payment, comes out during the next 12 months. These lines are key in today's BUR filing: "Expert discovery will allow the parties to address (among other things) damages...". BUR wants to collect all the necessary data to present the court with an accurate, reliable and sizable monetary award when they seek a Summary Judgement on March 2021 (according to today's filing). Make no mistake, Judge Preska may still consider Argentina's Discovery plans when she publishes her decision. If she takes BUR's plans, I can say with high degrees of certainty that this case is all but over, although it will take another 12-16 months to get paid. If on the other hand the Judge sides with Argentina, we will enter in uncharted territory and the outcome is uncertain for either side. If any of you needs any additional info, feel free to write me at firstname.lastname@example.org. Cheers.
Good article! Just goes into more detail what I summed up. Open with google Crome, it will translate for you.
Sadly I am not conversant in Spanish, but this article published today seems to make reference to some court proceedings
Anyone read Spanish