Burford Capital Share Discussion Threads

[onjohn] 11/8/2019 21:03

£10 this week mmmmm

[haveapunt1] 11/8/2019 21:00

Up tomorrow

[winsome] 11/8/2019 21:00

sk, the MW headline that was tweeted was so far removed from any description that could be attributed to BUR that no one would have guessed right unless they knew who it was or they were psychic. Come on...

[ghostme] 11/8/2019 21:00

Sweet karolina 2 I think you aren’t going to sleep well got a hunch you’re short reading your constant desperation of posting all weekend

[winsome] 11/8/2019 20:57

Now shareprophets are slating their hero at Gotham. Can shareprophets not handle objective and balanced comment from anyone or are they only interested in destruction. So much anger. Sorry but I can't suggest a good therapist.

[sweet karolina2] 11/8/2019 20:55

"Too obvious it was MW themselves"

Do you have any proof of that or is that your self serving assumption?

Yes you can fill a report on a company with assumptions and arguably etc but to win a court case you need proof and evidence.

[nigwit] 11/8/2019 20:53

I have it first hand by email from Elizabeth O'Connell that Burford "are very unhappy and upset and suspicious of market manipulation" and they are "investigating".

So it's clear they'll act if they're able to obtain sufficient evidence.

Meanwhile, there's no point in pontificating here.

(Personally, I think this will run for a long time and I hope it will end by setting clearer legal precedents that stop shorters from stepping over the lines of acceptable behavior ever again.)

[sweet karolina2] 11/8/2019 20:52

MF why can't I say anything I like? What would I be sued for? Defamation! That is where Obama's speech law come in to protect MW but sadly not me.

Fortunately I know UK defamation law very well, having had 4 bogus threats to sue me for it. Funnily enough the all the companies who threatened me are now in liquidation / liquidated. Strange how that happens.

[winsome] 11/8/2019 20:44

I'm with mad foetus. Block will have his head on the block. No question. As I said yesterday, the first few tweets in reply to MW initial tweet were hinting it was BUR. Too obvious it was MW themselves. Those tweets have since been deleted but be sure Burford have copies.

[williamcooper104] 11/8/2019 20:41

Sk - by that logic any company is arguably insolvent Remember net debt is not much over £100m

[trident5] 11/8/2019 20:41

What does purport to mean BUR is mean?

[tsmith2] 11/8/2019 20:40

I think Invesco would also have a good case against them, suspect we won't have to wait too long to hear further from them

[tsmith2] 11/8/2019 20:38

Thanks to a light disclosure regime, the esoteric nature of its business, and unethical behavior by its largest shareholder, Invesco, it turned Enron-esque mark-to-model accounting into the biggest stock promotion on the AIM. What does purport to mean BUR is?

[5chipper] 11/8/2019 20:36

Manipulate -

(i) handle or control (a tool, mechanism, information, etc.) in a skilful manner.

(ii) control or influence (a person or situation) cleverly or unscrupulously.

(iii) alter or present (data) so as to mislead

[edmondj] 11/8/2019 20:35

sk2,

Yes IF there happened a major reversal of assumptions over the Petersen claim but MW has argued like you quote, BUR IS arguably insolvent!

I don't recall any admission of hypotheticals in the MW critique.

Gotham's point today about this was more measured but they haven't been short just recently.

[5chipper] 11/8/2019 20:31

"It is manipulation"

Just depends on whether it can be proven.

Insolvent claims scared shareholders in to believing shares were heading to pennies.

[edmondj] 11/8/2019 20:31

Blah blah,

"A bit of commentary" can make a big difference according to the investor involved, e.g. Carl Icahn only had to tweet "We are long Apple..." in the days when tweets had to be far shorter, to move price materially.

If a 25 page dossier is overwhelmingly correct however, its originator would be rewarded for exposing incorrect pricing.

[luckymouse] 11/8/2019 20:29

Financial journalists aren't allowed to deal 48hrs either side of reporting on a company - although thats the policy of reputable fin publications - not the law I believe

[edmondj] 11/8/2019 20:25

mf,

Gotham are on the same case today in saying (and yes possibly to 'help out' MW in any future litigation):

4. We think Burford is inappropriately financed. Litigation assets – whose associated cash flows’ size and timing are notoriously unpredictable – should not be financed with debt. This poses a real risk of an eventual asset/liability mismatch nightmare.

But obviously that's a lot softer argument than bandying 'insolvent' claims whether or not prefaced by 'arguably'.

[sweet karolina2] 11/8/2019 20:24

EdJ,

An argument can be made that any significantly leveraged company could go bust in certain extreme circumstances. Most of BUR's assets are not particularly liquid, If there was a major disaster in say the Petersen case causing a collapse in the value of that case which in turn caused LTV covenants on bonds to be breached making them instantly repayable BUR would be highly likely to go bust, although those circumstances are highly unlikely to occur. Therefore BUR is arguably insolvent but not actually insolvent. As BUR pointed out in its rebuttal, MW were very careful with its wording.

[blah blah] 11/8/2019 20:23

Edmond, don't think you can argue that a bit of commentary on what people have been buying and selling is the same as a 25 page dossier alleging all kinds of malfeasance from an organisation that says it exists to write about fraud. The two aren't comparable in my view.

[brexitplus] 11/8/2019 20:23

It would be fun if Burford funded a class action for its investors against MW.

[mad foetus] 11/8/2019 20:18

The issue in this case will be simple: on Wednesday morning and again on Wednesday afternoon when the allegations were repeated, was it reasonable to believe that BUR was arguably insolvent? If not, MW were reckless and are liable for negligent misstatement and the losses suffered by anyone who relied on the statement.Then, whether it was reasonable or not, did MW in fact believe BUR was arguably insolvent? If they did not believe it then they are up for fraudulent deception and/or deceit. It will be hard for them to argue they believed it was arguably insolvent if they were buying shares at the timeAlso, the burden of proof here is 50/50: it is not the criminal beyond reasonable doubt test but simply what is more likely. The fact that so many commentators, even those who generally support shorting, have said the insolvency point- which is the one they led on - is wrong, and that closing a position while shouting the bear case is wrong suggests that MW will have a hard time showing that, on the balance of probabilities, it was reasonable to describe BUR as insolvent and they actually thought it wasBTW, iirc, the Guernsey companies law test for solvency is "whether a company can pay its debts as they fall due".