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 didn't know the judgement had already been reached?
it seems like a serious site. 995 usd a year to subscribe
i sent an email to lcm email to ask them to comment, because if this is true then there is material uncertainty from public information.
]1) if we are on a multiple we might make 18m aud x2 or 3 for the fund
2) if we are on 20pct * 740m gbp of profit so 150m gbp.
without any comment, people could assume 2) or 1) and if they get it wrong, the stock can be mispriced.
regardless it sounds good, even though i am sure poland will appeal. if they pay now, they have to fund it (borrow money). if they delay, they just pay some legal fees and then ultimately win/delay payment
the website has a twitter feed. they just organised an event in london. patrick our CEO was on one of the panels.
there were lots of other industry players quoted in the tweets. so this seems a legit site that attracts serious people to a conference.
if they have misstated lcm won, i would expect lcm to reach out and have the article corrected
Agree that it's misleading if not true and warrants comment.
If this is a genuine win that will actually be paid up to LIT, they would have been legally bound to do an RNS.
I have mailed again for reply. Be good if others can do the same
I have mailed again for reply. Be good if others can do the same
Good idea Gallmat. There has been a lot of promise here but no delivery.
Not sure how you derive no delivery from my comments.
Their cases are in the court process and theg have consistently shown excellent profits on cases won (95pct of cases)
Gallmat comments are spot on when it comes to delivery. I think we are lacking some level of shareholder communication here on a broader level. We want regular communication to investors. It was not since November 2021 if i recall correctly that we actually heard about a material resolution. That's a long time between drinks. I'm sure there is lots happening, so tell us about it!
regarding the £740M claim against Poland, there has NOT been a judgment, that article is misleading. If in doubt, go to the source by looking at the GRX news feed. Don't expect a ruling until the second half of next year (I have spoken to GRX on this myself). Disclosure, as well as been a shareholder in LIT I am a shareholder in GRX (only because i have confidence in LIT)...
When researching all the litigation funding companies I look at cashflow statements and bin the P&Ls. The P&Ls are done on such different bases, cash is not. When I look at LIT we have all years since IPO showing heavy net cash outflows. Fine - initially they were building the book but then the CEO moved the long stated 2.7 year average completion estimate to over 4 years. Add to that expensive debt (13%) and allied inevitable covenant concerns and you start to think that the share price is trying to tell you something…
You will say “the Chairman keeps on buying” (which has kept me/us interested) but he was buying well north of £1….
That was my next step. What email address did you use to confirm with green x
The reason for cash outflows.
We had money in organically and from raised capital.
It went out the door because we invested in cases.
Cash has come back in with profits ( in presentations ). But they thrn deploy it again.
How can we expect a big cash inflow and p&l when most of our money is still out in cases which are going to realise soon.
With respect Gallmat that this not true.
See the RNS on 20 Sept 2022 on this site tab above.
Cash outflow BEFORE investing activities:
2021: $56.5m outflow
2022: $55.2m outflow
You do ignore the +45m. net contribition from 3rd party interests.
Look at cash flow from operating activities and financing activities. You are reading half of the cash flow statement.
Of course if lcm pay out costs on 3rd party funded cases, then the 3rd party financier has to give them the money. The bit of cashflow statement you ignore
Thanks Gallmat - if that $45m is 3rd party contribution to Operating Cashflows then surely it should be in the top half to get to LIT's net operating cashflow. It is not explained in the notes unfortunately but to me it just looks like their Fund Management business investing in new (ongoing) cases. So not LIT's operating money, its 3rd party monies.
Look at presentation. Full year 2021 slide 19. Shows lcm position which drives cash bridge in slide 7.
This shows sensible operations.
Investments funded from profitable realisations and 12m aud operating expenses.
It shows lcm only position.
But it shows lcm.
Many thanks mate. I'll take a look.
Helpful guidance. Thank you.
I am also looking more. Always good to refresh
Great discussion mate. Thank you.
I cleared this up on email to publisher, who reverted with lcm also cc;d
they based it off a city am article. the city article was a bit sensational in title saying greenx to pocket the money, and in the body of article said it was ongoing.
this was rephrased as won money in their title when they rewrote it.