Blencowe Resources: Aspiring to become one of the largest graphite producers in the world. Watch the video here.
Https://seekingalpha.com/article/4625952-greenhaven-road-capital-main-fund-q2-2023-investor-letter
Stockpick … really not meaning to be rude but the evidence is all there on the web and on Burford’s website and on the numerous commentators and brokers a like and even YouTube videos dedicated to this mater.
Get on board at this level you won’t regret it 👍
StockPick
Nobody knows the time limits but general consensus is September/October but it could be tomorrow or next week? Argentina would have to post billions of dollars to appeal. I disagree it’s complicated - political possibly?
GTx
I can’t see many sellers when the judgement could come at any time and we have Q2 numbers on 13th September
Argentina will pay and have always paid. Incredibly the Chairman of YPF as widely reported made the following statement during the trial.. surely he knew the consequences of making such a statement at such a time .. Politics and Commercial realism at play??
“and when its claims of poverty in this Court are contradicted by its own officials' simultaneous boast that YPF's massive oil and gas reserves enable it to pay the judgment "with one annual EBITDA" and still have "150 years of gas reserves," making the expropriation "a good decision," and "we would do it again." Rhodes Decl. Ex. A (July 28, 2023 statement by YPF Chairman Pablo Gerardo Gonzalez). Vice-Intervenor Axel Kicillof echoed the point, noting that "the numbers are big" because the Vaca Muerta resources are valuable and allow Argentina to pay.”
Thank you Renegade for the link and thank you Seb the screenshot!
Not a lawyer but this to me sums it up … I would welcome any counter arguments to the following
Argentina did its best, before and during trial,
to ignore the key Bylaws language, which requires a tender offer if Argentina exercises control of
the shares "directly or indirectly, by any means or instrument." >………….. Argentina ignores that the Bylaws' protections were written capaciously and
functionally, not narrowly and formally, because investors insisted on a robust precommitment
before investing in the state-owned oil company of a nation with a history of economic nationalism.
Expropriation Law, which became effective on May 7, 2012. (Tr. 130:5-10; 118:7-10.) In any
event, the Republic's Answer expressly stated that it was "Law 26,741" that "authorized the
commencement of the expropriation process and permitted" the temporary occupation of Repsol's
PF shares until the expropriation process was completed in May 2014 (ECF No. 98 at 22). See
H. Daya Int'l, Co. v. Do Denim LLC, 2022 WL 974382, at *11 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2022)
("Judicial admissions must be clear and unambiguous admissions] of fact.") (citation omitted).
II.
THE COURT SHOULD REJECT PLAINTIFFS FLAWED APPLICATION OF THE TENDER OFFER FORMULA.
While the Court should find that the Republic did not exercise control over Repsol's YPF
shares before May 7, 2012, the economic importance of this issue is magnified by Plaintiffs'
misapplication of the tender offer formula. Plaintiffs contend that they are entitled to $3.4 billion
more in damages if April 16, 2012, as opposed to May 7, 2012, is the trigger date. This massive difference is based upon Plaintiffs' incorrect application of the Bylaws' tender offer formula.
As demonstrated at trial, Plaintiffs' damages expert, Prof. Fischel, ignored available
earnings data in computing tender offer prices. Those prices are set as of a "notice date" 40
business days before the tender offer date. (SJ Op. at 55.) Based on the Court's summary judgment
ruling, under the Bylaws* "Formula D," an acquirer must calculate the tender offer price using the
highest daily price/earnings ("P/E") ratio at any point in the two-year period prior to the notice
There is no merit to Plaintiffs' theory that the April 16, 2012 drop in YPF's share price meant that the Republic controlled YPF's shares as of that date. As Prof. Harris explained, markets react to news, which here included the proposed YPF Expropriation Bill. (Tr. 378:3-379:3.) Likewise, Plaintiffs' assertion that Argentina's experts "never opined in any of their prior reports that there was any significant difference between April 16th and [May] 7" is false. (Tr. 19:14-18.) They did just that. (E.g. DX-29 99 43-44.) And Fischel's "precommitment" theory (Tr. 178:11-179:20) (that the Bylaws were to intended to "discourage" future government action), aside from lacking foundation (Tr. 375:2-23 (Harris)), just begs the question of when the Republic first controlled the shares.