Member Info for Gtx1

A perfect demonstration on how " not "to break a contract as you would never get away with it. might be more appropriate here , LOL

GLA

Surly Sysco didn't execute a perfectly executed crime if they failed to execute and get away with their sinister plan to break the signed contracts in the first place, it's non sensical, a master class in what, ? being dumb by sysco and caught out by burford would be more appropriate here. That Author guy put a spin against burford and a phrase of praise towards sysco . with a spin of Undermining Burfords ability to negotiate a secure litigation funding contract. burford was spot on here, can't fault them at all, and that's why sysco have no defence here at all, just a well written unbreakable contract against them, ironically sysco themselves will regret testing Burfords contractual strengths. A master class in contractual arrangements from burford.

Right or wrong it's Just another view on this matter.

GLA

Well the other article renegade found was so far away from the factual truth it sounded like something that came out of the mouth of Donald Trump, with Chinese conspiracy theories. and a threat to the American way of life, it's normally the language of someone or some organisation that has no legal arguments to put to a judge or tribunal, and instead lowers themselves to just conspiracy theories and literary insults. Burfords broke no contracts at all, that's why they can stick to the truth and facts , and most observers can easily see who's in the wrong here.

The reason the author Dai Wai Chin Feman was in my view underhanded wrong and unfair, was because he clearly stated that sysco Conducted a master class on how to breach a litigation funding agreement, how can it be a master class if the contract is then easily shown to have broken that contractual binding agreement with burford, and that upheld inside a tribunal hearing , with also a court hearing pending to extend and ratify that tribunal outcome. For that author to drop that clear derogatory heading or wording against burford was opportunistic and wrong, and into a otherwise decent writeup , it's like someone telling you your Ferrari sports car looks quite nice, but it's engine is actually useless. Why not take a master class in driving with our engines , I sell Lamborghini 's why not buy my cars. Remember that guy from Parabellum capital Dai Wai Chin Feman is extremely skilful at what he does, any negative literary words could easily bring his company extra litigation funding in from anyone who's taken a disliking to burford because of his writeup.

Though I accept the rest was reasonable and fair, though surely that was the whole purpose of his underhanded writeup.
then again rather his writeup than some of the other ones, it's better we see these writups to get a feeling who's winning in the online truth wars .

Right or wrong it's Just another view.

GLA

Excellent finds renegade, it's good to see Burford doing their best in the media to put the record straight on sysco's atrocious malalignment of the true facts of this case.

Another point to highlight , in renegades post on Wednesday at 12.59 , the guy who wrote that post about a master class on how to breach a funding agreement, I realised that it wasn't just a ordinary observational look at burford and sysco's contractual dispute, it was actually a very crafty low level move on the part of that actual author who wrote the article to make Burford look like they didn't know what they were doing, in other words to present to its reader's and anyone else / corporate America, who's out there that his own company would probably do a better job than burford in litigation funding, as the author himself is working for Parabellum capital , another litigation funder, the author Dan Wai Chin Feman is the director of commercial litigation strategies corporate council in parabellum capital, so it's in his own companies intrest to make Burford look like they are not as good as his own company in litigation funding, thus his spin in saying sysco conducted a master class on how to breach a litigation funding agreement, which is actually factually wrong and totally rubbish, it was Burford who played a master class in how to protect any breaches in your litigation funding agreement,

So it just goes to show us we can't trust other litigation funders to back us up when we are clearly in the right here.

I state all the above text and opinion without any prejudice at all to Dai Wai Chin Feman or parabellum capital.

GLA.

It's shows us how wrong and desperate sysco are when they or their suppliers pick up the phone and get the chamber of commerce involved in their legal disputes and mistakes, trying to spin a Chinese security risk and involvement into any litigation funding case. Unbelievable.

desperate or what, any half decent judge with half a brain in their head will see right through syscos desperate plan.

GLA

I read that as burford showing a master class in contractual law to protect its financial interest in that sysco case, thus the situation we are in, being able to stop any low settlements by sysco.

sysco showed a master class in how not to protect yourself or conduct yourself when signing its very own legal documents and contracts , in other words they haven't a leg to stand on in any tribunal or court, though that won't stop them trying as we've seen.

The only place that I can see that sysco has any real leverage or advantages over burford in , is that right now sysco holds $140 million of Burfords money, so if sysco wants to delay things for quite a while then they can certainly do that ok, they are basically saying to burford if you want to see your funding money returned any time soon, then let us sysco settle the way we want to , and you Burford can keep any future extra earnings from these claims that come your way, you Burford won't get as much profit as you wanted and we sysco will not get much at all, though our customers will be a lot happier with us in the long run ,and you burford will keep your own shareholders happy with a somewhat lower profit on this case and also your $140 million dollars back again, to quickly peruse another funding case to make more money, also we'd all be keeping this awkward story out of the tabloids, as it may only make the litigation funding industry look tarnished, even though it's done absolutely nothing wrong at all.

Sysco have come out fighting because they are clearly in the wrong here , they've also tried to put a nasty spin on this case in the media and making burford look like they are the wrong doers here , any tribunal or judge will show them the door here , though Sysco's lawyers know Burford won't want this to drag on to long, as they need their $140 million back to do another funding deal. So it's maybe or maybe not time to get a independent arbitration panel set up to speed this conflict of interest out ASP. Burfords 100% in the right here, though if they are smart they will do some kind of smart deal for everyone concerned, God knows Burford have enough experts in-house to advise them on this very need and outcome.

I guess it depends on the size of the reduction of profits from these cases after several years of deployment money tied up in these substantial cases.

It's only my take on things, and only food for thought.

GLA

I suspect our BOD at burford had hoped our multi billion dollar YPF case decision would arrive before they eventually had to tell us shareholders about that SEC news, it's even more surprising that they were able to keep it under wraps for so long without someone's mouth opening up. for me it's not a bad problem at all, it's essentially a complex procedural issue when explaining how to document and state a companies financial intangible legal assets down on paper.

burford can only indicate and show a past legal business model outcome, they can never state today that they will ever win one single case in court, as only a judge's decision can do that on any given day , to do otherwise would be factually wrong and probably break the SEC rules, so we're left with the SEC and burford trying to come up with a financial reporting model that's fair and accepted by the SEC + auditors and the litigation industry itself.

So as I've said already our management where probably hoping judge Preska's decision would come in before they shared the SEC news with any of us shareholders, If we win this YPF case "say "tomorrow , then no matter what happens with the actual collecting of the settlement money, then I'm sure the issues around our financial strength and covenants being tested or even broken ,then our bond funding covenant issues will quickly disappear,

Also the amount of case wins this year alone as stated by Buford already , that in itself will bring a huge amount of confidence to shareholders and bond holders alike, and create a snowballing effect to our yearly earnings to deliver anywhere between $600 and $750 million dollars in earnings , this will be Burfords year ok, I'm so confident in Burfords business model and especially it's deployment funding and earnings from that historical financial modelling itself. that's why I'm really confident about Burfords shares. The markets can do whatever they want ,I'm confident with a company that absolutely thrives on any upturn and especially downturns. Brilliant year ahead .

Please DYOR, GLA

I'm expecting earnings this year to total around or over $3 dollars a share or £2.45p Stirling , and also without any input from the YPF case at all. Let's say for the sake of argument we give burford a low 7 times price per earnings figure , so that should be over £17 pounds Stirling, I'm giving Burfords a low 7 PE as there's so many good companies out there that are sitting on such a Low valuation, and should the market lift to a reasonable level then Burford should easily be in the " high mid £20s figure,

The following year I see earnings around $2.70c £2.20p Stirling with $600 +million that year without any more pent up court delayed cases coming through, and also without any YPF input at all. the futures looking bright ok, and should the Russian war and aggression stop, then I'm sure it will be a massive relief for the world and the financial markets, with that in itself taking a huge concern off most people's and investors minds, creating a uplifting to world markets.
Burfords share price really should lift massively this year and eventually be seen as a truly reliable great earnings titan of a company and given a top litigation funders premium share price in this sector.

PLEASE DYOR. GLA.

Million,

Lost the last part of the post.
Gla

Burford only has the normal amount of problems that any ordinary billion dollar company has, nothing out of the ordinary here, it's in the business of litigation, the whole point of litigation is that someone is always in some kind of conflict or at odds with one or more parties, Burford has daily disputes that get ironed out behind closed doors every single day. this door got left open unfortunately. and because it was $140 million dollars of funding.

Burford is waiting on the YPF litigation case decision from judge preska, the fact that Argentina along with most other countries in the world have massive amounts of serious debt is not really Burfords problem, it's Argentina's problem. It's most likely that Burford will win this case, and Argentina will be hit with a bill of around $19 billion dollars, and as usual it gets discounted by 50% if they want to negotiate on that amount to around $8.4 billion , with that amount already acknowledged and proven by the amount Argentina have already pencilled in for the settlement of this case , they never do that for no good reason. they have listened to their own top lawyers advising them, and told to expect to pay out that $8.4 billion. and if they don't pay out, then burford will most likely sell some or even all of the $19 billion dollar judgment to 3rd parties and at a large industry standard discount, most likely well below that $8.4 billion figure. Burfords is in the business of reducing risk wherever it can, so that would be in keeping with their past decision making judgements around settlements /money.

Burfords and sysco yes it's embarrassing for Burford ok, though believe me burford wouldn't fight this if it thought for one second that it was in the wrong, with Burford being the all round expert in this field, wouldn't you expect them to fully understand all the complexities around this unfortunate situation, so they will respectfully sort it out if they can, and if not then they also know how to play hardball in litigation cases. It will get sorted ok , and to the satisfaction of Burfords bank balance.

The really big payday that's literally guaranteed in only my opinion is the high settlement amounts coming in later this year, around 30 cases should massively bring in well over $600 +million dollars, I'm sticking my neck out and saying it could be over $750 million dollars, because those pent up court closure claims should come in around now, I'm expecting a bumper payday this year no matter what our YPF case does, it's the unknown here, and a possible multi billion dollar massive YPF case bonus thats there for absolutely nothing in the share price, Burford has always stated it's modelling shows over $600+million dollars profit per year could be expected and even before any court closures and pent up cases are taken into consideration, so we can expect something really special this year one way or another. Around $750

Bogart was extremely very happy with the presentation last night, so much so that he entertained the attendees afterwards , sure see for yourselfs below.

https://cvws.icloud-content.com/B/Adf9Llbd53WfA7ttUCuVrutP6pzTAeaYKyP_EYM4nLo4LjtW32NNv_ZM/v12044gd0000cfo168rc77u6vdk8s2i0.MP4?o=AtCNjiFwpsSg9IGE43O00necPgNXRCynDmvc-iqiUM52&v=1&x=3&a=CAogqTzuKhzhoCbs7shM3hs9I3aFxlNMhTrymWiELkveF0ESbxDq3erZ7jAY6rrG2-4wIgEAUgRP6pzTWgRNv_ZMaifFivuHxt1H88iELEytOqkp1swRSC7sDh2mn8nzrNfuPAdaJ88eRXlyJ75RsQ95djwGfIQv5aZNpPZ_oHN017LoJckaFpq5D8iVFpDDxDBn9A&e=1678987337&fl=&r=36216629-70fb-425d-86ea-13dd46dd0f33-1&k=AKVTKiJ6JO_5C5ZVLc4-tA&ckc=com.apple.notes&ckz=Notes&p=66&s=3ynEGZt86YLllfuw6sWBYFV725M&cd=i

https://cvws.icloud-content.com/B/Adf9Llbd53WfA7ttUCuVrutP6pzTAeaYKyP_EYM4nLo4LjtW32NNv_ZM/v12044gd0000cfo168rc77u6vdk8s2i0.MP4?o=AtCNjiFwpsSg9IGE43O00necPgNXRCynDmvc-iqiUM52&v=1&x=3&a=CAogqTzuKhzhoCbs7shM3hs9I3aFxlNMhTrymWiELkveF0ESbxDq3erZ7jAY6rrG2-4wIgEAUgRP6pzTWgRNv_ZMaifFivuHxt1H88iELEytOqkp1swRSC7sDh2mn8nzrNfuPAdaJ88eRXlyJ75RsQ95djwGfIQv5aZNpPZ_oHN017LoJckaFpq5D8iVFpDDxDBn9A&e=1678987337&fl=&r=36216629-70fb-425d-86ea-13dd46dd0f33-1&k=AKVTKiJ6JO_5C5ZVLc4-tA&ckc=com.apple.notes&ckz=Notes&p=66&s=3ynEGZt86YLllfuw6sWBYFV725M&cd=i

$13 dollars a share they state before any YPF case

https://www.benzinga.com/news/23/03/31378281/wedbush-maintains-outperform-on-burford-capital-lowers-price-target-to-13

This drop has all the hall marks of another shorting or sting by the dirty shorting brigade, we know they are there ok but just not when they will hit our share prices, there was no justifiable reason for this drop at all, if anything the shares should have went up, the profits were around what most investors could expect coming out of a court closure and backlog , and easily justified the companies valuation before the share price fall, I expect the shares to substantially regain that fall,

I reiterate there's no justifiable reason for this fall at all.

burford have stated numerous times before that there modelling shows a potential $2 billion realisation over the next 3 years, that potentially indicates yearly profits of well over $600+ million per year , now in that latest report yesterday the state they concluded 11 cases last year giving around $300 million minus that $23 + they couldn't collect because of a related case technicality, and then they state they have over 30 cases/ trials coming up this year 2023, so the profits from these cases should easily deliver over that $600 million dollars for 2023, backing up Burfords modelling system, burford just doesn't make $10 million dollars per case as we can see and know, so just doing a reasonable sum on the profits ffrom these cases in 2023 should massively increase the share price and valuation, what Burford is going to do is right there in front of investors eyes, there's very little guessing involved, and yes as Burford states the YPF case is in it for nothing,
that's unbelievably obvious to me and other's.

I'm actually astounded and bewildered at the size of this drop and the only thing that makes any sense at all with a perfectly good set of results like this ,is that market manipulators or shorters were sitting waiting on Burfords results to hit them hard if there wasn't a stellar set of results, that wasn't happening yet, they new that, there's absolutely nothing in those results that merits that fall, they do this on average every 3/4 months and then move into another company target,

This year with the court backlogs essentially gone and Burfords 30+ cases/ set for trials then a $600 million of realising of case's and profits should easily see our share price nearer £10 without a YPF result.
I've topped up this morning at £5.00 and can't believe how lucky I am to get these shares at this low price right now before a stellar set of yearly results at the end of this year. Brilliant opportunity here, and a decent safer investment during a more riskier markets downturn. Burford will absolutely flourish and expand in today's risky environment..
Brilliant opportunity here right now.

GLA

Shadow litigation ? It's very possible that judge preska has already reached her YPF judgement, with Burford and Argentina
asking Preska for complete secrecy and confidentiality around the judgment itself, giving burford and especially Argentina time to negotiate a private and out of the glare of the media a fair settlement amount . Also with Argentina ready to post a $ 1billion dollar bond for the appeal should Argentina not get the settlement deal it wants.

Judge preska is still within her court time limits for such a very important multi billion dollar case, also she effectively has no real time limits to allow the two parties to come to a mutually agreed settlement amount, and maybe/ only possibly that's why we are actually waiting right now on news from our YPF case .?

Only food for thought.

GLA

Yes renegade I completely agree ,we can't post Sebastian marils tweet with a potential $8.4 billion dollars of a award enough here LOL, the Argentine state would not have acknowledge and factored in such a huge potential payout if their lawyers thought the YPF case and no merit, their lawyers have already told them they will mostly likely loose,
And for the Argentine state to get ready to negotiate the settlement downwards, and to do that the Argentine state would be better to post a $1 billion appeal bond to dangle in front of our eyes to smell the money so as to speak, and then them saying it's here to just bank what we offer you in bonds, if you say yes to say $6.5 billion we will get it to you very quickly and you don't have to wait another few years of maybe several nasty politically charged appeals, and no money in your coffers, just more expensive outlays , Now what do you say Burford ,and remember you only paid $15 million for the case and we Will pay all your court cost as expected which runs into tens of millions,
All that might be off a little but I'd be confident the Argentine state will try something along those lines, carrot and stick job,
So if Argentina appeals it would only be a tactical move to give them time and space to allow burford to think over the cash in your hands now offer, or wait another few years. we all know cash in your hands now would probably win out here,
that's why these negotiating settlement advisers or lawyers get involved as they know all the tricks in the trade to get us a fantastic deal, can't wait, no matter what happens Burfords shares will fly this year.

GLA

In my last post that’s why I stated $8.4 billion, that’s because I was quoting that same amount in Sebastian marils tweet, Sebastian marils tweet was posted here at that time to bring it to everyone’s attention, I thought everyone already knew about that Argentina $8.4 billion provision. It’s also great to bring that tweet to everyone’s attention again.

GLA

If Argentina appeal then a proportional amount of the award would be posted to the court and that proportional amount would be determined by judge preska. A $1 billion bond seems a fair enough amount considering the potential award could be , say $17 billion with a expected amount of negotiated settlement coming down to $8.4 billion , I say that as Argentina itself has pencilled in their potential liability to the YPF case of possibly paying out $8.4 billion. to burford.

Anything can happen , I'm just glad I'm holding Burfords shares and not a handful of pesos.

GLA,

That is a very strong possibility timing wise, Argentina posting a $1 billion bond and then appeals the YPF ruling against them , giving Argentina more time and leverage regarding the actual eventual settlement amount, in other words they say to us take this offer of $5 billion dollars instead of a reasonable expected $8.4 billion or we can stretch this lawsuit out for another few years, and with all the political risk that involves, it's actually a very good bartering tactic for Argentina's lawyers. Sebastian maril could very well be on the money with that excellent twitter post. Thank you sir.

GLA

Yes this year one way or another is going to be a brilliant financially rewarding year for Burfords shareholders, I won't be surprised to a share price of between £14 to well over £21+ a share here,

Judge preska obviously won't be hurried by anyone to reach a fair judgement on our YPF case , I can completely understand the need to be absolutely thorough as it's going to cost Argentina $billions in compensation, as they themselves have even factored in a potential $8.4 billion pay out in this case to burford, they even recognise that error of the past administrations mistakes and they are also duty bound to legally defend that very expensive mistake, I'm quite sure their feed back from their own lawyers would have prompted them to make a financial provision in there own accounts for $8,4 billion of a payout, anything less will be a bonus for the Argentine state, Burford can't financially loose from this case as we all know they've already sold 40% of the case to 3rd parties giving them a win either way.

It could still be months before judge Preska gives the Argentine state a financial headache, bad decisions cause bad legal outcomes for Argentina's coffers, I'm just glad I'm behind Burfords side of the fence on this case.

A big thank you again to Sebastian marils and his close following of YPF case,
Also happy New year to TWT and every poster/ shareholders on here, ******HAPPY NEW YEAR**********