We did in fact conduct that measurement and while we were very close to 50%, so the number of U.S. shareholders, the percentage of U.S. shareholders now is in the very high 40%s. We were a whisker under 50%, and so we did not trigger that level this year. So, what that means is that for fiscal 2023, we will continue to be a foreign private issuer through the end of the calendar year. This is as time passes, frankly increasingly less relevant because, especially this year, because we’ve gone voluntarily to quarterly reporting. And I think you will continue to see ongoing expansions in our disclosure as time passes. But in terms of that formal question, we will test again next June. And assuming we do pass the 50% level next June, which I would anticipate given just looking at where the volume of shares are trading today, then we would be – we would no longer have that foreign private issuer status and we would start as a regular U.S. reporting Company for the fiscal year-end of 2024.
So, thank you for that question. And now I think we have a question on the phones.
Operator: Yes, we have an audio question from Julian Roberts from Jefferies. Julian, your line is now open. Please proceed with your question.
Julian Roberts: Thanks very much. Can you hear me?
Christopher Bogart: We can.
Julian Roberts: Great. Apologies if you’ve already answered this, the first one. But are you able to isolate the fair value impact from rate changes on the Burford-only results? And then I was going to ask a couple of other questions, one, generally on competition, and whether you’re seeing any significant changes among your competitors. Another, whether you expect that there will be a broader following of this – of the Judge’s choice in the 3M case to require that any funding arrangements be disclosed to her, and if so, do you think that will actually affect Burford’s business in any way? And finally, would passing the 50% level have any impact on your thinking about maintaining your technical name?
Christopher Bogart: So, thanks, Julien. Let me take a couple of those, and then I’ll pass the remainder off. So, not in any – not in the same order that you asked them. But let me start with 3M. So, for those of you who don’t know, there is a very large piece of U.S. consumer litigation against 3M in connection with the manufacturer of allegedly defective earplugs that were then given to military service people and the defect in them caused hearing loss among what is alleged to be several hundred thousand service members. That case has recently announced a settlement agreement and after the announcement of the settlement agreement, and when I’m talking about this case just to set it in motion, all of these are individual consumer actions.
So, these are literally the injured service people coming and suing 3M. And because they have individualized damages, this isn’t a class action, it’s simply a large number of individual cases that are managed together on a consolidated basis. So – and we obviously don’t engage in the kind of small dollar financing that you might see given directly to consumers in these cases. What the Judge in that case did, which has I think been slightly misunderstood by the mainstream media, is issued an order focusing on protecting consumers from predatory lending practices. So, effectively she wants to police a world in which some rapacious sort of payday lender-style firm comes in and offers some poor military guy $10,000 for a claim that might be worth $100,000 and they take the deal because they want the money fast.
So, this has nothing to do with what we do. This is really fully in what I’d call the consumer protection or consumer financial regulation area. That being said, the broader question of disclosure remains the topic of much discussion and I think we’ve made our position on disclosure clear, which is that we disclose whenever we’re required to do so. That happens in a – certainly, a percentage of our cases, most arbitration matters were disclosed in, all bankruptcy matters. That’s why the Petersen case is public, for example. And a variety of other cases. And we think that disclosure when it’s accompanied by appropriate safeguards and procedures, which we expect to be able to get in place, is somewhere between a non-event and a positive for our business.
Competition, no, I think the short answer. The competitive dynamic is basically the same as we’ve described it to you before. We sort of divide competition into two buckets, the pure-play litigation finance firms, and then multi-strat firms. That really tends to divide down by deal size, with the pure-play firms doing smaller deals and the multi-strats doing larger deals. And we continue to compete in a robust environment, have for our entire existence, and are perfectly content with the competitive environment. As to any impact on aim, no, we don’t have any contemplation at the moment of doing anything different than we’re doing today. We continue to watch and watch how the trading and the shareholder base evolves. But as we sit today, we’ve got significant groups of long-term loyal shareholders in the U.K. and Europe, in the Middle East, and in the United States and we look forward to continuing all of those relationships over time.
And Jordan, would you like to take the —
Jordan Licht: The first question.
Christopher Bogart: First question?
Jordan Licht: The first question I think was, what was the impact to asset value based off of the change of rate. I have said in my talking points, $94 million on a consolidated basis. That number would probably be in the mid-$60 million range with respect to Burford-only.
