Member Info for NGR1616

Some villages have lost their idiots! The classic "who's selling...." well it's pretty hard to buy something that's not for sale - every trade has a side you bunch of charlatans.

From what I can see the volumes were in line with the 3 month averages....

Further investigation - AI says "Yesterday’s volume was roughly in line with (or slightly below) average levels — not an extreme spike. Specific figures indicate average daily volume for BUR is around ~1.8 M shares, and yesterday’s traded volume in U.S. markets was close to that area."

"There’s no widespread reporting or market commentary describing a dramatic sell-off or panic on Burford’s U.S. listing in the last trading session. Major financial news isn’t highlighting a daily collapse or abnormal volume surge. (Search results did not return news specifically about yesterday’s session."

-regarding shorts

"There is some short interest in BUR, but it isn’t unusually high or indicative of widespread negative sentiment relative to a typical U.S. traded stock:

✅ ~3–4 % float shorted = modest bearish interest.

MarketBeat

✅ Days-to-cover ~2-3 = not enough to suggest a crowded short trade or risk of forced squeezes."

No one buys a business with overheads regardless of how cheap it is unless they see either the ability to get cash flow positive quickly to avoid feeding losses or for the future potential and a ROI. Both are hard sells it seems. The only other reasons are for defensive plays or tax purposes (losses) although I’m sure someone can come up with more reasons or counter arguments.

Maybe they won't be in time....make them an offer ;-)

Both countries are unlikely to pay initially and can't pay fiscally now - this will drag out for years but there will be a settlement at some point and even a 10-20% outcome is still significant for BUR. This is why I like Burford as a 5-10 year play - despite delays in cases such as YPF and Sundance for eventual payments, they are building a maturing portfolio of legal outcomes that will convert uncertainty into cash over time and settlements and awards will start to drop with greater regularity.

For the avoidance of doubt, I didn't use AI to write my inciteful piece.

The company is either a glitter ball waiting to see the light....or a turd covered in glitter.

Only time will tell.

Is that the correct report?

And yet the market doesn't agree

Looks good. New commitments up. Revenue up 79% from YTD24, Earnings up. cash generation up 25% YTD24

They have cash beyond 2028 assuming the cost of the JDA is sufficiently covered by the revenue from it - nobody knows outside of a select few

A sale might now precipitate from this, or remain as unrealised as before - nobody knows outside of a select few

The JDA might result in commercial scale application and production or equally as with STM it may not-nobody knows outside of a select few (yet)

This really doesn't change much or it changes everything. With these sorts of companies and their versions of transparency only time will tell.

From CGPT:

When Argentina nationalized YPF in 2012, it seized a 51% stake from Repsol, the Spanish oil company.

Two investment funds — Burford Capital (on behalf of Petersen Energía and Eton Park Capital) — sued Argentina and YPF in U.S. court. Their argument:

Under YPF’s 1993 bylaws (adopted during privatization), anyone who acquired more than 15% of YPF’s shares had to make a tender offer to all shareholders at a specified “fair price” formula. Argentina, by taking control without making that tender offer, violated the bylaws, which were governed by New York law.

Judge Preska’s $16.1 billion judgment against Argentina in the YPF expropriation case (decided in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York) came from a contractual damages formula — not a discretionary valuation — that stemmed directly from YPF’s own bylaws.

The Damages Formula (from YPF’s bylaws)

The bylaws defined the “fair price” for a mandatory tender offer as:

Fair Price

=

max

⁡

(

Highest Price Paid in Prior 2 Years

,

Market Price

,

Book Value

)

Fair Price=max(Highest Price Paid in Prior 2 Years,Market Price,Book Value)

At the time of the expropriation (April 2012):

Argentina took 51% of YPF. The “market price” clause, as interpreted by the court, meant the highest trading price of YPF ADRs (American Depositary Receipts) during a specific look-back period (about 30 trading days before the takeover).

The relevant market price was determined from YPF’s share price on the NYSE — around $39 per ADR (roughly $10 per share in local currency).

Applying the Formula to Petersen and Eton Park’s Stakes

Petersen Group held roughly 25% of YPF.

Eton Park held about 3.5%.

If Argentina had made the mandatory tender offer, those shareholders could have sold their shares at the fair price.

Judge Preska therefore calculated:

Damages

=

(

Fair Price per share

−

Actual Value realized

)

×

Number of shares

Damages=(Fair Price per share−Actual Value realized)×Number of shares

She also applied pre-judgment interest (a huge component) under New York law, which allows for simple interest at 8% per year.

Base damages (missed tender offer payment): ≈ $8.4 billion

Pre-judgment interest (2012 – 2023) at 8% simple interest: ≈ $7.7 billion

Total: ≈ $16.1 billion (This figure covers both Petersen and Eton Park’s claims together).

Key Points in Preska’s Reasoning

The breach occurred when Argentina failed to make the tender offer, not when it nationalized YPF.

The measure of damages had to reflect what investors would have received under the bylaws’ formula — not a market-based valuation of YPF as a company.

Interest was mandatory under New York law once the amount was determined.

Outwardly we hear the fiscal situation in Argentina is improving but when you dig a little deeper the crisis is just shifting.

The sooner we negotiate a settlement the better for us and Argentina so we get something before they implode and they can avoid implosion by demonstrating their willingness to fulfill their obligations to ‘creditors’

There are a few ways to look at a settlement. They can be viewed as a capitulation as was the case in another share I was involved in, but any court case has risks and a settlement removes the risk of a loss or an overturn on appeal - crystalises a result, avoids delays and further legal costs as we have been advised could go on for potentially years. In this case we have an award but it's highly unlikely Arg can pay it and if they paid it over what timeframe and in what way? Assets? Bonds? YPF shares? A combination? It seems unlikely they will pay in currency alone.

This case is a drag on the SP, so I see a settlement being quite likely once Arg has some options to play with and I'd not be surprised if it's as low as $4bn gross. I'd prepare yourself for that news but see it in the context of that being the end of the matter. No more risk, no more delay. I think that would see the SP stabilise. The danger is everyone gets carried away with expectations of $16bn plus interest - I just can't see that happen. Arg will delay and delay and delay otherwise.

I give up....this site is a joke and often cuts off parts of the post

*A settlement in the

*A settlement in the

This is the last paragraph in a fairly long RNS. Take note of the very last sentence, which in my opinion is not there by coincidence.

"Burford further cautions that there are meaningful remaining risks in the YPF matter, including further proceedings before US and foreign courts, appeals, enforcement and collateral litigation in other jurisdictions. Finally, litigation matters often resolve for considerably less than the amount of any judgment rendered by the courts and, to the extent that any settlement or resolution discussions occur in the YPF matter, no public communication about those discussions will be possible until their conclusion"

We have a very strong case. We also have a very obstinate defendant who doesn't have the means to 'pay'.

A settlement in the

The working on a settlement is interesting. Don't be surprised after Argentina has access to money that they settle for much more than half of the $16bn which frankly right now I'd take quite happily rather than wait years but I'm not in it for the long term unless I'm forced to.

Trade reporting shouldn’t be relied upon for many reasons. The only true indicator is price movements supported by volume based on news or an investor buying or selling absent of news.