Burford Capital Share Discussion Threads

[stoxx67] 12/8/2019 06:29

SK2 attempting , but failing , to make a defence for MW and the procedure it followed.


it may be that this is company ending for Muddy Waters Capital, that really would send a strong and necessary message to others who may try to profit in this way.

i am all for efficient markets and understand that two way trade is necessary, but shorting then publishing false , misleading and inaccurate statements as part of a research note is deception , the very thing they attempted to accuse Burford of.

interesting week ahead.

[dudishes] 12/8/2019 06:07

Simple, open short at $11000 (Muddy Waters), close at 350ish, that was their position, as shown on screen. Some lump. Job done, nice one Son.


Case against, need to prove accounting procedures, loosely claimed by MW to be false.


Back to you I reckon, Mr.

[hatfullofsky] 12/8/2019 05:33

It's defamation

[hatfullofsky] 12/8/2019 05:32

Remember the BP crisis, class action against the board for loss of value (from some shareholders) was absolutely ridiculous and went nowhere. The only action here will be against MW.

[porsche1945] 11/8/2019 23:37

MW coming out with more stuff shortly and Gotham City Hedge Fund coming out with some negative info of their on Bur as well as they join the attack, just reported in the Times, could get a chance to go back in at 4 again. Governance of Bur is poor, like alot of the stuff Woodford is invested in incidentally. The share price was at a stupid level either way.

[3dwd] 11/8/2019 23:30

If UK plc was quoted ...it would be bear raided .. especially in August..easy to do .. Burford was purely a candidate that ticked the boxes for mw.. not rocket science.. market manipulation ...in my opinion yes...will it be proved .. probably not ..but the company should address some points..and soon ..apart from that 1200 is minimum price tgt and potentially alot more ..

[gettingrichslow] 11/8/2019 23:24

How many of the Top Posts are yours Minny? You do feature in one though! Would you like me to remove it?

[minerve 2] 11/8/2019 23:19

As you are every week, of every month, of every year.

[henchard] 11/8/2019 23:12

dsmith57,

"Some stupidly panicked and sold at the bottom. Should they be compensated for their stupidity?'

MW seem to have covered themselves pretty thoroughly, e.g. "By downloading from, or viewing material on this website, you agree to the following Terms of Use ... You agree that use of the research on this website is at your own risk ... You further agree to do your own research and due diligence before making any investment decision ... You represent that you have sufficient investment sophistication to critically assess the information, analysis and opinion on this website ..."

Crucially perhaps: "You further agree that you will not communicate the contents of reports and other materials on this site to any other person unless that person has agreed to be bound by these Terms of Use."

So, does any liability (if a liability exists) lie with MW or the press (and indeed BUR in their rebuttal) who communicated the contents of the report to other persons willy-nilly, without those persons having agreed to be bound by MW's terms of use?

[cousin jack] 11/8/2019 22:51

“Proof of loss for any individual is the main problem”.

Agreed dsmith57 - but it’s not insurmountable. A reasonably satisfactory solution was devised to compensate investors after the Aviva prefs. fiasco last year. Unfortunately I don’t think investors will be compensated here as the legal battle will be interminable.

[scotty666] 11/8/2019 22:40

Funny read the last couple of days, seems things didn’t pan out so negatively as a few expected aye !!

[dsmith57] 11/8/2019 22:30

Proof of loss for any individual is the main problem. Some stupidly panicked and sold at the bottom. Should they be compensated for their stupidity? Others have held on and hopefully will see a shareprice which will put them back in profit. What happens to him? Damages for all the stress? Unquantifiable.

[mad foetus] 11/8/2019 22:11

MW will have significant insurance. There is a good chance this ends them and Block though. You can't go on Bloomberg saying something may be insolvent when it clearly isn't and when you are buying shares in it as you speak. His credibility is finished and he will spend the next 3 years embroiled in litigation. I suspect he may have thought he was subject to US Law, and may have thought he had a freedom of speech defence, which would be hilarious.

[minerve 2] 11/8/2019 21:19

Are you sure it isn't Gollum?

[nerdofsteel] 11/8/2019 21:18

They did earlier

[onup1] 11/8/2019 21:15

Has gotham yet to state its case

[winsome] 11/8/2019 21:11

MF, I had wondered about Tort and I see BUR have supported a lot of Tort cases.

Only question is, how much is Muddy Waters worth?

[mad foetus] 11/8/2019 21:07

You get sued for negligent or fraudulent misstatement. It is a tort. They made a statement. They intended others to rely upon it. Others did. If the statement was made recklessly or fraudulently they are liable for all the losses sufferedAre you so unfamiliar with the law of tort? This has nothing to do with freedom of speech, it is all settled English law. Read about it before pontificating

[brexitplus] 11/8/2019 21:04

SK2

Why do you keep deviating from the particular to the general to defend your position?