Tadpol52
16 Nov 2015
Moved to Burford from this 3 months ago! They have gone up 20% this has gone down 20% thank you Eagle51
Krayl
16 Nov 2015
Re: Run........ Thanks for the advice. I finally decided to cut my losses before this last bit of news.
eagle51
16 Nov 2015
Re: questions.......... POAS 3 Aug 2015: "Good luck with your researches but please bear this in mind: I am sure you have far more knowledge than I about company law but do you have more than the BoD of Juridica?"................................yes - I do.Now. Finally.
eagle51
09 Nov 2015
Re: Run........ my, my - some stuff's gone on behind the scenes here, tut tut................the exit doors need to be locked and guards placed on the side and back exits to make sure no-one tries to slip off without being noticed 
Outside, the forces of good are at work and the air is fresh and clean.The big money's gone and you'll just be fleeced for a few million a year to be managed poorly from here on. All a bit mundane but, hey, a couple of mill a year's not to be sniffed at, eh? JIL wasn't about shareholders (after they'd coughed up the original $150m). I use the past tense intentionally.
eagle51
26 Oct 2015
Run........ [link] wouldn't be the least surprised to discover (we won't unless there is an independent investigation of all this rotten company's dealings - more to the point the manager's) if, ever since JIL shareholders' 36% interest in the manager, JCML (for which they had paid millions - I wonder who to?) was swapped for an agreement with a new manager JAM (100% owned by a certain person) that opportunities that might have been offered to JIL have somehow been taken on by JAM. Surely not, because this wouldn't really be playing by the implicit rules, would it?I doubt very much any lucrative new cases will find their way into JIL following the debacle re case no 8008L (I think I have identified this antitrust case, courtesy of Google - the smell is truly noxious). Too many eyes are now on it and even things like non execs' 125k expenses (what for?) might even come under the spotlight soon. Some NEDS appear to think this is the House of Lords It's probably over for shareholders here. They should take a close look at what happened in GBO (in which the signs were all there for some time before the truth emerged) - yes, it really does sometimes happen. Here, you might see the non-execs quietly try to slink off before the proverbial really does hit the fan, people get really angry and the thing gets wound up (with piecemeal realisations and most of the proceeds going to predictable places). IMO the money that was to be made in this company has been - sadly not much of it by shareholders. Divorces are expensive things and six of them take a lot of funding. I wouldn't be surprised if wife No 7 isn't already in the wings. It is surely only a matter of time. I wonder what shareholders are buying the couple as a wedding present? Get out.
eagle51
19 Sep 2015
Re: Article 17/09/2015 People would be wise to think carefully before committing money here. All is not well.imo/dyor
RichardLY
19 Sep 2015
Article 17/09/2015 [link]
eagle51
19 Aug 2015
half year report.......... ........littered with typos and full of nonsense.Re case 8008-L, methinks the lady doth protest too much........................"we can never successfully predict the outcome of any case"............so why include them at a value above cost then?"We might have got $500m" - yes, if the case hadn't been thrown out IN EARLY 2014 - not in 2015. Why did the auditors agree to its inclusion in the 2014 accounts at a value so much in excess of its true value, which I strongly suspect will have been known by the time the 2013 accounts were signed.Ref again: "We might have got $500m" - again yes, but "we" didn't. If your aunt had been born with balls, she'd have been your uncle. I might have climbed the north face of the Eiger but I didn't.Someone did get a $14.5m "performance fee" though. And too many management fees. How about giving it back?In what is shareholders' money now being invested? Clearly the prospect of dividends is now remote. Certain people look set to continue to do well though.I sold my shares (all bar a very few) a while back - the stench here is appalling. The non-execs should be ashamed.
eagle51
03 Aug 2015
Re: questions.......... "but do you have more than the BoD of Juridica?"........................probably. And the thing is, I am not for sale.
Puppet On A String
03 Aug 2015
Re: questions.......... I have been investing for many years and I am under no illusions about how things work. Companies are not there to make you or I rich. I am not happy about how things have developed this year but I have to take the rough with the smooth as I have no choice unless I sell. Good luck with your researches but please bear this in mind: I am sure you have far more knowledge than I about company law but do you have more than the BoD of Juridica?
eagle51
02 Aug 2015
Re: questions.......... I suggest you consider the overall position here a bit more carefully, POAS. I know the article was old news but the part I highlighted was interesting (to me at least).Look back to the change of manager at the beginning of last year and see if you can spot anything interesting. JIL owned 36% of JCML - have you looked at the accounts? How much does it own of JAML and are there any notable differences in the was the manager is remunerated.The transfer of shares to RF's ex 10 days before we learned an 'investment' with a value of $29.7m was never going to materialise is de minimis in relation to a number of other matters that need to be investigated and understood. Not least the payment of a very significant performance fee based on assets that we now know at least part of didn't exist. What happened to that money and who benefited?Perhaps you can 'elucidate' POAS? To date, I have been mainly working on smell, but I intend to get to the bottom of what's going on here.
Puppet On A String
02 Aug 2015
Re: questions.......... This is old news and shares were transferred from Fields to his ex in June. Details on Juridica's website. Maybe I'm being thick but I can't see what you're driving at. I would very much like to understand the point you are trying to make however. Please elucidate.
eagle51
02 Aug 2015
Re: questions.......... [link] former beauty queen initially wanted Mr Fields to pay her £750,000 a year so she can live in a luxury £5.5million home near Kensington Palace in central London. She has lowered the figure to £500,000 after Mr Fields agreed to pay her £2,168,750 to buy a property".........................a reliable annual income (say - 2% of the value of a portfolio of assets one has control of, regardless of performance) might remove a lot of the worry....................hang on a minute..............
Puppet On A String
02 Aug 2015
Re: questions.......... Who is Fielding? Or have you deliberately stated the wrong name? Just curious......
eagle51
29 Jul 2015
Re: questions.......... "Nobody's listening, eagle"...................very few people ever listen,, Richy, so no surprise there.Have to be careful what I say as sharp lawyers are involved - BBs are public forums. email me ([email protected]) and I'll explain if you're interested.Shareholders here have been shafted imo - and there's plenty of evidence if you look carefully (as I have done).
