The board promised to make an announcement before the end of 2017 should there be a need for special arrangements to extend the life of the trust beyond end 2017. Not sure why there is a delay but we must surely hear something soon. The share price remains below the remaining asset backing, if one believes the company's evaluation.
Of course Im aware these BBs are public. I was merely enquiring if, like me, you had found your chat with E informative. Its pretty obvious something untoward has been going on when Burford, which operates in a similar field, has gone from strength to strength, while Juridica has gone down the pan despite those running the company making millions. It was only after chatting with E did I gain an insight into how weve been stitched up.
Your snotty reply (albeit 3 months later) indicates youre not interested in discussing Es findings off the BB.
Relief probably that we're getting a little money back via 8p dividend. But its crumbs compared to the £millions made by Fields & Co. Take a look at the 2008 doc that changed the structure of JIL - it became a glorified moneylender taking all the risk with little/none of the reward.
Interested to learn. I've been "had" before by so-called managers, equally got a lot to thank others for. This has got that bad smell about it, more than good luck. As another example I had a tiny holding in Ludgate Environmental Fund as a wind up play. Each report NAV dropped on a different excuse (from about 80p when I bought). Then they were bought out at 16p (NAV then in the low-mid 20s). Then we hear of a massive NAV increase after the offer was made unconditional. Fortunately I had sold most before this and so the loss was almost worth the laugh out loud when I read the last RNS. I emailed the chair to make me feel better, no reply of course!
I will decide whether to join the great cause upon learning more. These guys usually have very fancy lawyers! Appreciate your sleuthing
My,my. That was an interesting auditors' report. Anyone would think they were worried - compare it with last year's. Mind you, RF's (allegedly) gone now. They seem to make a virtue of a further $40m being written off the value of so called 'investments'. That's Guernsey for you.
They and others should be worried. It's worth understanding what this (and two subsequent similar agreements) actually meant, then reading what the Lord Brennan has had to say in his chairman's report each year. And how the accounts have been presented.
There's a great deal more on top. I'm still piecing it all together and the worst that will happen is that it will hit the press when I'm done. UK regulators won't put in the effort to understand it all - besides, establishment is involved.
The non-execs have basically handed over everything to him or entities controlled by him over the years and he has occasionally returned some to pay 'bigged-up' dividends and a few expenses, eg non-execs $4.4m. When it's done, shareholders won't have even recovered (in dividends, plus what's left) what they paid for shares in the IPO and a subsequent placing. Inside the circle, RF and connected parties have had something like $60m. Outside the circle using JIL's money? Unquantifiable.
This won't go away despite all the efforts being made to close it all down asap and escape by the side door.
"Gross proceeds from the definitive settlement agreement are expected to be approximately US$65 million and approximately US$800,000 from the partial settlement agreement. These gross proceed amounts will be reduced by tax and other reserves .............
.............these two case results represent approximately US$55 million of the US$126 million 2015 year-end NAV reported by the Company on 31 March 2016".
They don't give an estimate of "other reserves", fabrav (it's an entirely incorrect description - I suspect what they mean might be along the lines: "depending on what costs we decide to charge against the settlement proceeds"). Not sure what or where the tax is in respect of. If the tax and "other reserves" amount to more than about $10m it will be another hit on NAV. If it was likely to increase them would they not have said?
NAV was a fair bit higher than the SP at the last update but I wouldn't touch it with a barge pole.
My bet is they'll all try to slip out of side doors before leaving a mess for someone else to sort out in the end. Shouldn't be too long. It's lost its purpose except for those who continue to feed off it.
Put a toe (not a financial one) in the water and write and ask m'lud what he thinks ipcreate is worth (or the auditors who will say they don't know - ask the company). Also ask him if, given the opportunity to do the deal again, he'd still agree to the appointment of a new management company 100% by Richard Fields (JAML) when JIL owned 36% of the previous one (JCML) which it had paid millions to increase its stake in a few months before. The timing of RF's 5th divorce was interesting.
Then decide how much you think it's wise to invest.
I'll get there - luckily we still have the press.
Whenever you don't fully understand something (eg accounts ever the most experienced financial professional would have difficulty understanding) and it seems to you the whole situation could so easily be made much more transparent but it isn't, ask yourself this: what should I do?
The answer is: "Run for the exit". You might get a token dividend for show but the money is destined for elsewhere.
Globo was easy - I wrote about it all in 2012. No-one listened. Plus ca change
It's an interesting one - and it gets more interesting as you get further into the accounts (it's not a good sign when the first line of the accounts is a lie ... Burford might argue they are the leading...). As directors' salaries and expenses have increased (see how Birchfield appears to be taking little fees all the way through the corporate structure) so the manager's fees have increased. How they managed to justify paying $14m to the manager just before writing off 20%+ of the NAV is quite astonishing. One might surmise that the directors have had no proper handle on the value of the company.
If the manager misrepresents the NAV to the directors; and the directors misrepresent the NAV to shareholders, who is liable? Can JIL get the cash back from JCML? Should shareholders vigorously encourage this? What precisely are the auditors doing for us shareholders?
It does make you wonder whether the only reason that the directors don't want the continuation vote is to avoid the presence of an independent administrator who can place the directors under proper scrutiny.
With honest companies I have had a good deal of success in investing in those that are winding down and repaying their shareholders. JIL is tempting as they state they have a NAV of 77p and the share price is currently 42p.
However, I also had the misfortune of investing in Globo. The assets they stated in their accounts were an out and out lie, and the auditors did not pick up on it.
I will keep my eye on JIL and may make a small investment, but will be very wary.
"I am disappointed by the way a few to be enriching themselves at a cost to the many"..........only one to any significant extent, fabrav - he's not a director of JIL.
It has gone a long way beyond what most seem to have cottoned onto from my posts, fabrav.
I doubt there's much to lose from the current price though, because a pretence at good corporate governance is being made and they'll probably leave enough in to pay some kind of dividend.
The real money's gone, although the greed hasn't stopped completely - it's just been curtailed a bit pro-temps. Shareholders should consider that the same 'investments' - in legal cases many of which go on for years - will continue to get a management fee charged against them every year and you'll never really know what they're worth. Nor will the auditors I suspect, although little will they care because they raise investments as an emphasis of matter in their report, saying they're impossible to measure. They're probably only interested in the money - like everyone else who's involved. You're investing in the dark and trusting the wrong people imho.
Someone should ask the board for confirmation that all the investments (inc ipcreate) are worth what they're held at in the accounts. There'll be little explosive presents coming shareholders' way until this unsavoury enterprise is euthanised imv. Shrewd move not to put it to the vote to wind the thing up in November - one has to get one's income from somewhere,
Eagle - I came rather late to JIL. I was much impressed by the portfolio, the dividend and what I thought was good potential. Like you, I am disappointed by the way a few to be enriching themselves at a cost to the many. Can the ordinary small shareholders do anything? many years ago, when holdings were all certificated, we could band together to nominate one proxy to attend meetings and do our bidding, but with holdings now all in nominee companies, what can we do?
Whatever anyone thinks might have been going on here that's wrong over many years (it is imo a great deal worse - watch this space; I'm being blocked but will NOT give up) , they can double it and multiply it by about a hundred.
Does anyone really buy the nonsense about: "Both the Board of Juridica and its investment manager acknowledge that scale and diversity are now required in order to invest successfully in this asset class, which is not achievable under the Company's existing structure"...........
........the game is up and it's only a matter of time now (if you're reading this..............your clock is ticking - you're not going to be able to "slip out the side door" when you think the fuss has died down enough. It's a bit late to be pretending to do a proper job by reining in some of the excesses (I am being a great deal more than extremely polite using these words) and turning off the taps of new fodder.
No-one is above the law, despite whatever friends and contacts they might think they have within the system. There are mavericks around who don't play by convention and some are a bit smarter than you think, m'lud.
1. the management team are/were greedy/crook with their charges.
2. Board may have sharpened up a bit.
3. The book of cases may pay out more than allowed for in the current share price, but that all depends ........
With the spotlight on the management team, I will hold for now with the hope for better things to come (but finger hovering over the eject button).
Juridica was tipped in Investors chronicle on 15th Feb 2016by Simon Thompson's as one of his bargain shares for 2016 , I think this caused sp to rise initially , hoping there is some imminent news to explain more recent rise. FYI this was his write up back in Feb.:-
The board of Juridica Investments (JIL), a company specialising in backing corporate legal cases with its own capital in return for taking a share of the financial awards in the event of a favourable outcome, made an important announcement three months ago. Its one that has yet to be factored into the companys valuation.
Having consulted with its shareholders, and following a disappointing financial performance in 2015, Juridicas board has decided not to make any new investments apart from funding its existing portfolio of claims, and will now seek to return capital to shareholders following the completion of its investments. Its a sensible decision given that the company is simply too small to diversify and scale up its operations in this specialist niche area. Not that the company hasnt been successful to date. Since inception Juridica has generated net cash proceeds of $222m on 19 cases, a return of 33 per cent on its investment capital; and has paid out total dividends of 59p a share to shareholders, a sum equivalent to 47 per cent of the gross capital it has raised. And there is every reason to believe that the company will be able to declare further capital returns significantly ahead of its current market value.
Thats because Juridica now has 15 cases on its books (consisting of antitrust and competition; patents and intellectual property; and commercial cases), which had a book value of $102.8m (£71.9m) at the end of June 2015. It has committed a maximum of $9.7m to support these cases in the future. In addition, the company has cash and receivables on its balance sheet worth $46.3m, or £32.4m at current exchange rates. This means that with the companys market capitalisation now only £47.4m, then two-thirds of the share price is backed by cash and receivables (money due for payment on claims awarded in Juridicas favour). Or, to put it another way, with the companys shares being priced on less than half last reported net asset value of 94p, of which cash and receivables accounted for 29.5p, then investments in legal cases worth 65p a share are being attributed a value of only 13.5p, or one fifth of their value.
Of course, the company still has to win enough of those outstanding 15 cases to crystallise the value on the balance sheet in order to return the cash proceeds to shareholders. The fact that Juridica was forced to writedown the investment value of some of its cases by $31.8m in the first half of last year, which in turn prompted the 71 per cent share price decline in 2015, highlights the risk. But with the cases in effect only being attributed a value of 20 per cent of their carrying value in Juridicas current market value, there is a huge margin of safety here. In addition, the board is reviewing the companys fees and cost structure so that it can maximise the amount of capital it returns to shareholders. I would expect another corporate update at the time of next months full-year results with regards to the timing of likely capital returns to shareholders.
So, with the shares trading on less than half book value, the risk:reward ratio points to a profitable outcome. Juridica gets my vote on a bargain rating of 0.7."
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.