The next focusIR Investor Webinar takes places on 14th May with guest speakers from WS Blue Whale Growth Fund, Taseko Mines, Kavango Resources and CQS Natural Resources fund. Please register here.
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. 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.
I hope you're right but given that Argentina are broke I think they may well take what they think can get as an immediate payment . I think it quite likely they will settle out f court so mid range would be very nice I'll give you that !
Repsol did a very poor deal, accepting 50 cents on the $. No way is that a precedent for BUR. Certainly it is not a legal precedent that would guide the Court’s assessment of compensation. The Court would surely determine compensation by reference to the formula in YPF’s constitution.
So BUR would be looking at a much larger figure, say, at the mid-point of the range on page 64 of BUR’s 2019 Accounts. That shows a net entitlement to BUR (itself) of $3.35bn, before interest. That’s two times BUR’s present market value.
The £1.5m could be a late reported deal from when the share price was peaking early in the day. I would guess that it won’t be any indication of the share price on Monday
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-repsol-argentina/spains-repsol-agrees-to-5-billion-settlement-with-argentina-over-ypf-idUSBREA1O1LJ20140225
6 years ago but they had a bigger cut than we were due so what could we expect to settle for to save them going to court and possibly have to pay more ,,, six years of interest to hope for on top?
Repsol were paid in bonds which they converted PDQ
5 Billion ??? = 2.25 for us ?????
says the glass half full investor here !!!!
Gotta b a Blue day tomorrow hopefully ! ( well I guess that's what the £1.5 million shares bought after close on friday think?)
The latest delaying tactic from the Argies is to claim that circumstances have changed in Argentina and, after all, there would a fair trial there of the Petersen case. On the 5th June 2020 this motion was rejected by Judge Preska. This only confirms that the Argies have no confidence in their case and that they will do anything rather than have a judgement on the substantive issues. The old saying is that slow justice is no justice, unfortunately that is the situation here. I fear that the implication is that the Court has not even got around to considering the substantive issues yet. We can only hope that is not the situation after all the time that has elapsed.
As has been reported already, the Judge has given the parties until 19 June for them to confer and send a written statement to the Court setting out how they wish to proceed. I cannot see the Argies co-operating with this, but I have no idea what powers the Judge has to compel them to state their case or failing that lose the case. If there was any justice the Argies would have exemplary damages against them for wasting everyone’s time. Naturally, that would be on top of the substantial compensation claim.
Pennylots I've merely posted an article in English they are not my words
The slide (12) I posted a link to (produced by Burford) are the figures I'm relying on !
Sorry, FFC, but your analysis is different from what is reported BUR 2019 Accounts. For example, at the foot of page 63 BUR says:
"In June 2019 the US Supreme Court rejected the case, ending the FSIA arguments (re jurisdiction) permanently. The case has now been returned to the trial court for merits proceedings. Argentina and YPF have answered the case and the trial-level litigation process is ongoing."
Also the numbers that you arrive at for potential entitlements under the cases (Petersen and Eton Park) are somewhat lower than those reported on page 64 of BUR 2019 Accounts.
We should normally assume that BUR audited 2019 Accounts would be a definitive record of the facts?
Thank you time.will.tell, and to everyone, though a I have to say FFCmember you've redeemed yourself with me after converting that Spanish into english, great big smile here, I struggled to get that converted. also those 12 slides were a great reminder to the fantastic potential of burford in any recession, it's so easy to forget just how recessionary proof burford really is, Excellent sir.
GLA
Continue
Burford Capital has already said it plans to continue and will seek to collect economic damages.What can be the economic damage?Since the beginning of the judicial proceedings against YPF and against the Argentine Republic, the real value of the economic damages against both Argentine defendants has been a subject of great discussion. The Petersen case was first filed in April 2015 and did not include an amount requested by the plaintiffs, while the Eton case, filed a year later, included an estimate of $ 430 million. That amount, five years later, is another.However, there are three very different calculations that explain what economic damage that Argentina (and perhaps YPF) may have to pay if Judge Preska publishes a ruling unfavorable to Argentine interests.First, Burford Capital, the current owner of 31.25% of the Petersen case, uses three different scenarios that give an economic damage valuation that varies between $ 800 and $ 2.8 billion. It is necessary to clarify that this range applies to the percentage that the company still maintains in the litigation since it initially acquired 70% of the economic benefits and has sold 38.75% of its participation. In other words, according to Burford, 100% of the value of the economic benefit to all claimants is between $ 2.6 billion and $ 9 billion (see chart).
: Story of a trial that could cost up to $ 12 billionThe case started in 2015 and went as far as the United States Supreme Court.The case for the expropriation of the Argentine oil company presented in New York in 2015 against YPF and against the Argentine Republic, learned of its fate this Friday. Judge Loretta Preska of the Court of the Southern District of New York considered that the case will remain in the United States and cannot be transferred to an Argentine court.From the beginning, YPF and the Government have categorically rejected the claims alleged in the lawsuit as inadmissible, arguing that the United States was not an appropriate forum to deal with such a sensitive issue. YPF and the Government, as defendants, time and again presented arguments that support the idea of ??transferring all the proceedings to an Argentine court. However, first the Southern District Court of New York, then the Second Circuit Court of Appeals and finally the United States Supreme Court ruled against the request of YPF and Argentina or refused to hear the case.After a decision in January 2019 of the nine North American supreme judges, Argentina and YPF launched the last possible legal procedure and presented a motion to dismiss the case using the doctrine of the "Forum de No Conveniens".In simple terms, the defendants claim that Petersen Energía Inversora and Petersen Energía, the Spanish companies that filed the lawsuit in 2015 and that are not currently related to the Petersen Group, erred in assuming that they could present their claims in a North American court. In fact, Argentina and YPF maintain that the same instruments under which the oil company sold its shares in New York in the 1990s when it was privatized mention that "any action related to the execution of the statutes or the rights of a shareholder in by virtue of them they must be presented before an Argentine court. "Recall that Judge Preska herself in September 2016 already had an opinion on the transfer of the case to Buenos Aires, indicating that there were insufficient guarantees that the Argentine courts offered a fair and impartial trial. Three years later, the Mauricio Macri government managed to convince the judge that the country had changed and that Argentina now offered an independent court. The Judge agreed to listen to the new arguments.However, during this period of allegations and exchange of briefs, there was a change of President in Argentina and the plaintiffs insist that the country once again does not offer judicial guarantees.The judge of the Court of the Southern District of New York, Loretta Preska, this Friday ruled and opined that, although Argentina has independent courts, the case should remain in New York and the parties should inform it on June 19, how they plan to continue. Burford Capital has already said it plans to continue and will seek to collect economic damages.What can be the economic damage?Since the beginning of the judicial proceedings
Sudnal
Lets hope your positive triggers come perfectly spaced ??
4 or 5 spikes would be most welcome !
pennylots I have no idea where some over on the blue board get their info from but it was suggest that both parties now have until the 19th of June to say how they want to proceed ? from that starting point unless they want to settle ? I guess it could be a while or is the hard part nearly done now ? lets hope so !
There certainly is all the info you need in the annual accounts but it's a bloody hard read which is why I enjoyed the Hardman report as they cherry picked the "good" bits
sudnal I'm not so sure burford do Quarterly updates ( maybe once the new listing happens they will be forced to ?) So I think we are now waiting for the half year which they have said will hopefully be in September after the Listing
Does anyone know when the Q1 trading update is? There are few positive triggers here from what I could see in the medium term 1. Q1 results we know are good based on recent commentary on few cases closing with revenue realisation 2. Peterson case resolution 3. US Listing 4. Any other positive commentary from VW case on realisation. 5. Commentary on increased litigation activity due to COVID. GLA
The information on page 12 of the presentation is a repeat of page 64 of BUR 2019 Accounts. The missing crucial piece of information is when will the Court announce its judgement?
I have no knowledge of the US court process, but the judgement in the Petersen case must depend, crucially, on the Court’s view of the relevant documents. In particular those would include the by-laws in the constitution of YPF that set out how the minority shareholders would be compensated in the event that there was change in control of YPF. The formula is objective and works by reference to P/E ratio and earnings. Whilst there is always scope for lawyers to argue, this is as definitive as it gets.
My point is: there is good reason to suppose that this court case will not be a long drawn out affair. However much we like to believe that this is an “open and shut” case, we absolutely have to have that judgement in order to proceed to enforcement, and of course to pile pressure on the Argies. Consequently, a judgement would do wonders for BUR SP, and US shareholders would be gagging for the shares if that happened before the US listing.
An interesting slide (12) re the financial gains so far and potential gains going forward from this years results presentation if anyone is interested ?
https://burfordcapital.com/media/1736/fy2019-investor-presentation-slides.pdf