Member Info for dgdg1

Gtx1, thanks. I have done plenty of DD including reading virtually the entire court filings of Argentina and Petersen (the main ones anyway). Of course as I am not a solicitor it's hard to know sometimes which arguments are more likely to be accepted. Having said that, on most legal points I think Petersen (Burford) are likely to prevail, although there is one particular legal argument that Argentina have brought up which I don't feel able to determine who has the upper hand, which is why it really needs lawyers to cast an opinion. Someone like Maril who is just a journalist simply doesn't have insight into the legalities of it. Just saying "Preska will nearly have to give this to Burford as a win, or any country can take other foreign assets off other share holders" is actually neither here nor there - the judge has to go by the legalities of the case, whatever the end result will be. So my question is - is anyone aware of solicitors who have been through the filings and case an opinion and if so who and where and what did they say?

Rising and steadily increasing volume every day since last Friday, and it looks like highest volume today since the Cooper announcement, and we're less than half way through the day. Something is up.

Gtx1, am interested to know, when you say "nearly all the experts" who are they exactly please? Do you have any relevant links? And have you found any dissenting views? I would be grateful to hear more details/links about that as well. Thanks very much.

What's Jason's email address?

In the US now at $10 or 815p

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/italys-draghi-backs-large-investments-gas-infrastructure-developing-countries-2022-06-26/

Very interesting, thanks. Can we assume that Chariot, who do have the full data set, are able to assess very well the likely upgrades in the CPR? Or is it fair to say that they themselves don't properly know how the CPR will turn out because whoever does the CPR will have more advanced computer programs which know how to analyse the data better than even Chariot themselves can? I mean if it was so simple that Chariot can understand the data very well by themselves why does it even take so long to produce the CPR?

JImmy thanks for your estimates. But would you mind to please answer specifically this question: is there any chance (and if so how much) that it could just simply all go wrong in the CPR and for some reason it will conclude that the gas is not commercially recoverable? Thanks

What does it say, for those of us without access to Twitter?

Thanks for the replies, perhaps I need to rephrase the question: is it possible that the CPR could produce a really negative outcome, like saying there is hardly any gas or it's not of good quality or commercially recoverable, i.e. something that we are not considering at the moment? That would only be if they somehow see this from their detailed analysis of the technical data they receive and clearly is not something which Chariot or AP think at the moment, but could it nevertheless happen? Have such things happened before and if so how often?

Does anyone know please if it's actually possible that the CPR will be disappointing despite all the good noises the company has been making? If so how likely? Thanks in advance.

PC01, yes it's very undervalued but not as much as you say, as you are ignoring not just the need to discount future income (which makes a big difference), but also the now 65% tax rate, and the fact that it probably costs more than $30 per barrel now to produce.

The tax is only on UK profits.

I think a reasonable argument could be made that due to the generous investment allowance it is now more likely for this investment to be made, at least by UK companies who would otherwise just give the money away in tax. But my worry is that even so the value of the resource is now less, because of the extra tax that will have to be paid. Previously for every £100 of gross profit they would be left with £60 after tax, but that will now be £35, so surely the value is now only 35/60 compared to before or 42% less. Of course this assumes that the market price before was based on the assumption that the present oil price would remain unchanged and also that the windfall tax will stay indefinitely. One could argue that the market price was in any case based on an assumption of say long term $70, in which case the fair value now is no less, as if the price were to fall back to £70 then presumably the extra tax would be removed.

As of now the market cap is more like £51m

Agreed. I can't see why there are clearly some very disappointed investors who are selling out. There was nothing particularly surprising in the presentation, and there is plenty of grounds for hope that some good news could emerge soon, most likely inclusion on a big trial. The share price seems low, and is now the same as before the announcement of the 70% reduction in death for the sub-groups. Doesn't seem logical.

Under Outlook: " In addition, building on our existing body of evidence, we are actively exploring the opportunity to collaborate...."

Has anyone seen an RNS?

Why does everyone keep criticising the protocol and RM for agreeing it? Do you think they should have said no-one can get steroids because that might make the test fail? They couldn't do that as it would unnecessarily put people at risk. Also, if it would have emerged that there is really no improvement when using SNG compared to steroids there wouldn't be a need to approve it. I'm not saying there actually was no improvement, but the principle of why everyone got standard of care treatment (steroids generally) is understandable

Maril says he doesn't know if the filings will be confidential. Bogart said clearly on the results call that they would be public.

As usual some stupid comments in the IC with a generally negative tone eg:

"The word “timing” appears more than 30 times in Burford Capital’s (BUR) annual report. The litigation funder attributes its first pre-tax loss of almost $60mn to the “vagaries of the litigation process” and a series of court delays. Burford’s chairman thus concludes that the loss is not a “matter of substance”. Timing is far from insignificant in the world of litigation funding, however, where companies back legal claims and take a share of the winnings if they succeed. Cash flow is crucial to consistent returns, and Burford’s is notoriously lumpy."

Incoherent criticism there.

Then "The unpredictable and lengthy nature of litigation is also beginning to translate into headline losses." Implication being that it will continue with no rational argument to support this, when of course the opposite is logical in that the pent up cases needed to conclude at some point.

Then "Litigation funding is still a nascent industry and opportunities abound. Risks, however, are also plentiful". No explanation what those risks are - timing risks? Is that it? Hardly a risk. Or that they might lose some cases? Well of course, that's understood and a natural part of the business model.

And to finish off, probably one of the most absurd comments yet by anyone regaring Burford "these figures will doubtless raise the spectre of earlier criticism from US short-seller Muddy Waters over Burford's accounting treatment." Are you joking? What has the slow conclusion of cases because of covid got to do with MW's allegations of fraud, which no-one believes anyway now, especially in the light of the US listing with the consequent SEC's scrutiny of the company?