Member Info for NGR1616

1. IMF Bentham / Omni Bridgeway (ASX: IMF)

• Listed on the Australian Securities Exchange, it’s one of the few litigation funders publicly traded besides Burford.

• So far, there’s no clear evidence that its share price has dropped due to the U.S. Senate tax bill. Most discussions focus on Burford (BUR) in the context of U.S. legislation  .

2. Fortress Investment Group

• Though a private company, Fortress has spoken out strongly against the proposed 41% tax, warning it could “knock out our industry” as a private company we can’t see the effects of this on their ‘value’

Or the first thing he would want to dissuade people going after him?

This bill was introduced in May 2025 when the shares were trading above £10. The link may not work but the supporting text is quite alarming:

"Representative Kevin Hern (OK-01) introduced HR 3512, the Tackling Predatory Litigation Funding Act to the House of Representatives this week, addressing the out-of-control third-party litigation funding (TPLF) market and providing much-needed relief for the middle class and curbing frivolous lawsuits. Senator Thom Tillis (R-NC) is leading the companion bill in the Senate. "

https://hern.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=3108#:~:text=The%20Tackling%20Predatory%20Litigation%20Funding%20Act%20will%20tax%20TPLF%20profits,directly%20involved%20in%20the%20case.

Currently BUR pays 23.8% capital gains tax and foreign funders often pay 0%.

Proposals are for profits to be taxed as ordinary income + NIIT (totalling ~41%) regardless of origin or type.

I suspect this is the reason for the slip in the share price and BUR were required to recognise it's potential impact. I'm sure BUR will be exploring various tax solutions but it looks like any loopholes are being closed under the guise of levelling the playing field so make taking 'cheap' litigation action less attractive and lowers the costs for defendants with less speculative cases being applied.

Not good for BUR in the short term and possibly beyond however there remains the chance that the BBB and Senate bills get diluted or not enacted.

Couerdelion did you read the RNS? This is about a BUR specific risk.

Until there’s some softening in the tone about taxes or some other positive news I’m inclined to agree it’s not one to put money into at this moment. It’s going to take a number of days or weeks to digest this news, but that doesn’t mean some YPF doesn’t materialise on the upside in the meantime.

I would have been surprised had they paid any time sooner than the final decision without a chance of appeal had been arrived at; so no change for me.

What kind of negotiation strategy and business strategy would it be to take low ball offers? We should stay the course every time and only negotiate sensible (not capitulating) settlements . You are advocating massive giveaways without realising the damage that will have to the investment case.

BUR has significant dollar exposure. The dollar has declined significantly and there is a notable correlation between the two since April 2025.

Currency fluctuations also have impacts. USD is seen as lowering in the current scenarios.

*we’re

So now we’ve saying Nanoco under Edelman just gave Samsung IP protected products and information with zero restrictions? I’ll need to check back but I suspect there would be a JDA in place but we’ll not have access to the small print. If there was no agreement or contract in place I’m sure they’d have mentioned that in the case preparation but I recall that they mentioned otherwise.

I don’t think it’s fair to blame the previous teams for the infringement of IP, that there was to date only one adopter of CFQD’s in displays (in meaningful volumes) who happened to use the IP , Apple and ST pivoting away from the development process for reasons only they know…..unless everyone is suggesting a different management team could have influenced these 3 behemoths of the electronics consumer industry? It’s a preposterous suggestion and anyone who thinks otherwise probably believes macron was snorting coke on the train the other day.

Paul Planet Earth 1/2 TG2D - the fact you continue to peddle the [conspiracy] theory that two posters with a contrary opinion to yours are the same person really tells its own story. Next you'll be telling me that Cirrus clouds are produced by microwave oscillators.

Pass me the tissues. You are such a baby crying all the time about something that is now long in the past. It would only be relevant if the same leadership were in seat, but they are not and the focus now should only be on the future under the current leadership team.

For the first quarter of 2025, analysts had projected that Burford Capital would report earnings per share (EPS) of approximately $0.30. However, the company reported actual EPS of $0.14, missing expectations by $0.16.

This shortfall was primarily due to lower-than-anticipated revenue, which came in at $118.86 million, compared to the consensus estimate of $157 million. 

Despite the earnings miss, Burford Capital reported a net income of $30.93 million for the quarter, a significant turnaround from a net loss of $29.94 million in the same period the previous year. 

The company’s stock experienced a decline following the earnings release, reflecting investor concerns over the earnings miss.

I got a notification that the expectation for earnings was $0.31 per share versus the result of $0.14ps hence it’s a large miss. The problem is likely with the expectation rather than the results themselves that look solid compared to Q1 ‘23 and ‘24.

Looking back and squabbling about it is hardly going to help attract new investors if they use this place as a sounding board before deciding to put in some money. Can we all instead just put aside personal grievances (both with other posters or the old management structure) and enjoy the current positive trajectory and focus on the future rather than the past; which aside from patent validity and cash position post settlement are the only relevant factors that come from it.

Sony is definitely a prime suspect.

Maybe STM’s product was fundamentally flawed or suboptimal compared to other offerings in design, size, performance, imaging, speed, price but nothing related to Nanoco’s contribution and they were told early enough that they were not going to be considered for implementation into devices.

Whilst Apple may have cancelled development with ST for SWIR sensing it doesn't mean some Asian Chemical Supplier isn't continuing development using Nanoco materials.