Burford Capital eyes bond launch to support legal boom
By Gavin Lumsden / 10 Jan, 2018 at 12:43
Burford Capital eyes bond launch to support legal boom
Burford Capital (BURF), the legal financier backed by fund managers Mark Barnett and Neil Woodford, is eyeing another retail bond issue to support its rapid growth.
The AIM-listed investment company has revealed it made $1.3 billion in new commitments to legal cases last year, more than treble the level of 2016.
Given the growth Burford has experienced, the company intends to hold meetings with fixed income investors. A bond issue may follow subject to market conditions and pricing, it said.
Burford has issued three retail bonds on the London Stock Exchanges ORB market in recent years, with the last raising £175 million in an oversubscribed offer in May 2017. The bond pays a 5% annual coupon and matures in December 2026.
Burford shares jumped over 5% to £11.62 at the signal the company, which takes a cut from payouts of cases it funds, could continue the expansion that has propelled the stock to a 12-fold increase in the past five years.
Today's rise ends a period of weakness since the company reshuffled its management last month.
Phil Dobbin, equity analyst at Jefferies, maintained his buy recommendation and price target of £13 for the shares. He said the figures showed a steady increase in single case financing in the second half of the year but a five-fold rise in portfolio finance, which involves multiple claims and therefore is less vulnerable to a single negative verdict.
This also implies that Burford and its managed fund are gaining further traction with major law firms and corporates with large legal departments, the gatekeepers to the market, and the main targets of Burfords marketing efforts, Dobbin said.
Invesco Perpetual is the biggest investor in the £2.3 billion company with a 22.7% stake mostly held in Barnetts High Income and Income funds. Woodford, Barnetts predecessor, owns 11.4% in his Equity Income fund, according to Thomson Reuters. The stock has been a positive highlight for both fund managers who have endured a difficult 12 months.
BUR buample from ford Capital looks interesting technically and got a good write up on
ample from Edmond Jackson | Sun, 24th December 2017 - 12:00....Ive taken a chunk just ove a hour ago.
<b>I drew attention to this AIM-listed litigation finance specialist (BUR) at 123p in 2015: a special situation since legal funding is independent of business cycles, Burford was evolving as a market-leader (principally a US-based firm) yet its shares were below-radar. In a habit of nearly doubling annual profits, at 570p last December it appeared well-placed for 2017 and has maintained its soaring chart to a recent high of 1244p, currently 1125p where it trades on a forward P/E in the mid-twenties, yielding 0.8%. Id expect consolidation from here given the story is now better-known and new investors may not appreciate how lumpy, litigation finance profits can be; also there is no meaningful yield despite progressive dividends, in support. Yet in the long run Burford is prime-positioned in an international growth industry that's more stable than retail fashion or technology. Yes its stock appears to reflect animal spirits of a mature bull market, and is exposed to a market slide, but would then be a priority to buy/add. The chief risk would be an extensive falling out among senior management, that fragments the firm with key talent leaving but theres no such sign as yet. Buy on weakness.</b>
This Co. is supposed to be a new 'asset class' - a new way of doing things...
And now classed as just a momentum stock
The market seems to be resembling ladies fashion, 'oh no BUR is so 6 months ago'
Is big oil the market's darling now?
I'd like to see some good news from this company too...
My second rant done....
Sorry ,but i can't find any comment by man apart a price target which looks good at £13.00
though the price is a little rocky,though i guess there is no real news out so thesis moving with general market.But i do have faith in these prospects.
I note Woodford capital has built up a 7th biggest holding in his fund.
Though lately he has been having a bad time Privident financal 50 percent down today,Purple bricks rocky with snorters and sunday times,allied minds tanking tobacco shares sliding.hope he has a winner to compensate...
Litigation finance disclosure: Transparency or tactics?
Christopher P. Bogart | August 14, 2017
As even a cursory perusal of the legal press will confirm, litigation finance is growing. Research on litigation finance shows that its use by law firms grew four-fold between 2013 and 2016; three-quarters of GCs surveyed say it will continue to grow in the next five years.
Although the majority accept litigation finance, it has a few critics, notably the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which remains a vocal opponent (despite the apparent contradiction of a business lobbying group decrying a market-based solution to a demand-driven need). Among the key concerns that the Chamber raises is the question of transparency and whether the fact of financing and the identity and terms of the financier should be disclosed in litigation.
Transparency sounds like a righteous goal, and it is almost a cliché aspiration in our business culture. But it is worth defining the purpose of disclosure in litigation and the standard for requiring it. In doing so, it becomes clear that transparency is already provided for under various court rules. Litigation finance does not merit a special set of rules, nor should it be held to a different standard.
Disclosure requirements for legal finance area is a topic that merits extended consideration not only because a vocal minority have advocated that special new rules are required for legal finance, but also because these attempts have generated quite a few headlines in the legal press. One could get the impression from those headlines that special disclosure requirements for legal finance are advancing, so a review of the facts is in order.
In litigation, the standard for disclosure is quite simple: It is fair to ask what disclosure will add that is relevant to the matter at hand. How is it relevant to know in a commercial litigation matter that there is an external provider of finance or who that provider of finance is? How is it relevant what the terms of the financing arrangement are?
In almost any litigation matter, these matters are rightly deemed entirely irrelevant to the elements of the claim. Courts have not found disclosure of litigation finance to be relevant or necessary. They do not inquire as to these factors, nor should they feel the need tojust as they do not inquire into all the various business relationships that litigants have, and the pressures that they might be experiencing due to those arrangements. If these business and financial relationships are deemed irrelevant to the ultimate disposition of claims when they are called something other than legal finance, urging a new and special standard of disclosure based on the semantics of a category descriptor seems patently unfair. The courts have not felt such a special standard necessary.
In the US, the standard by which financial conflicts of interests must be disclosed is settled and clearly defined. The Rules of the Supreme Court, the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure all require the identification of a partys parent corporations and any public shareholder owning more than 10% of the partys stock. Providers of financing to a party or a casewhether specialist financiers or banks are not required to be disclosed.
Disclosure is a much-debated topic in international arbitration, but it pertains to arbitrators, not providers of finance. The disclosure of potential conflict of interests is indeed one of the arbitrators fundamental duties, and all of the major arbitral institutions rules require arbitrators to disclose relationships with interested parties. The International Bar Association (IBA) has, however, recommended expanding required disclosure to encompass any non-partys financial interest in an arbitration matter, including not only specialist finance but other forms of funding, broadly defined. The inclination toward increased disclosure exemplifie
Important message from the Financial Conduct Authority:
Posting inside information that is not public knowledge, or information that is false or misleading, may constitute market abuse.
This could lead to an unlimited fine and up to seven years in prison.
If you have any information, concerns or queries about market abuse, click here.
The content of the messages posted represents the opinions of the author, and does not represent the opinions of Interactive Investor Trading Limited or its affiliates and has not been approved or issued by Interactive Investor Trading Limited.
You should be aware that the other participants of the above discussion group are strangers to you and may make statements which may be misleading, deceptive or wrong.
Please remember that the value of investments or income from them may go down as well as up and that the past performance of an investment is not a guide to its performance in the future.
The discussion boards on this site are intended to be an information sharing forum and is not intended to address your particular requirements.
Whilst information provided on them can help with your investment research you need to consider carefully whether you should make (or refraining from making) investment or other decisions based on what you see without doing further research on investments you are interested in.
Participating in this forum cannot be a substitute for obtaining advice from an appropriate expert independent adviser who takes into account your circumstances and specific investment needs in selected investments that are appropriate for you.