Burford Capital Share Discussion Threads

[epo001] 12/8/2019 19:03

I don't think we'll get a response from MW. Their counsel will have reminded them of the old adage "Better to stay silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt".

[bbmsionlypostafter] 12/8/2019 18:58

Dudishes
12 Aug '19 - 18:26 - 10076 of 10078
0 0 0
SK (a name he took from a dead female friend BTW),
-------------------------------------------------
sweet karolina2
11 Aug '19 - 00:29 - 30091 of 30157
0 1 1
Whilst on the subject of suing auditors. I know someone who did (got OOCS, but it was a long battle).

I contacted the auditors of a company I was having a battle with (Karolina is actually the name of the CEO's girlfriend


SK, did you shag the embattled CEO's girlfriend to death?

[ppceh] 12/8/2019 18:56

Burford have open door re suing for libel but obviously will wait on MW response to their Rebuttal

[blusteradjuster] 12/8/2019 18:34

This is what they’re really rattled about.

Having tried - all day long - to poo-poo what the data shows quite clearly.



Sweet karolina2 12 Aug '19 - 17:58 - 10072 of 10078

“who applaud the really silly market manipulation approach”

[dudishes] 12/8/2019 18:26

SK (a name he took from a dead female friend BTW), wasting your time Sir, they will not listen (loosers) rather than short again this am, I chose to pick Blackberries, our kids garden fence infested with them.


As for the announcement, somewhat hasty, rubbish intellect and no chance in the US of A!

[dudishes] 12/8/2019 18:21

Why has share recovered to £7.50, not £16?

True G, a damp squid, but are we awaiting 2nd barrel MW?

[sweet karolina2] 12/8/2019 18:21

mf,

Yes companies do sue for libel - I have personally had 4 threats from 3 companies of being sued for libel - all 3 are insolvent now and either in liquidation or liquidated.

Why is BUR not suing MW for Libel - you keep insisting the report told lies and caused harm to the company the legal way to rectify those damages is to sue for libel.

[mad foetus] 12/8/2019 18:03

Do companies sue for libel? Why would you when you can sue for negligent misstatement, which has a owner threshold of proof? And if yo can get the FCA to do the legwork, why went you?

[sweet karolina2] 12/8/2019 17:58

william,

I also doubt Petersen becoming worthless would be enough to breach covenants, but we don't know because BUR refuse to tell shareholders what it is worth without Petersen. Also if the fair values on the rest don't properly account for the risks of getting no return, even though the judgment is likely to be favourable then that too could require an adjustment of book value and then BUR might be in covenant breaching territory. However I am certain the bond holders would not pull the plug but instead for BUR to do a placing to strengthen the balance sheet.

All very unlikely and hypothetical and we all know the "arguably insolvent" line was there to sensationalise the report.

Why aren't BUR suing for libel? The bulls, who applaud the really silly market manipulation approach, don't want to answer that question.

[williamcooper104] 12/8/2019 17:47

Appreciate it it's unlikely to go to zero but post judgment it's just a relatively illiquid sovereign credit and cannot see how it cannot have a materially less of a FairValue given movements in sovereign credit spreads

[leoneobull] 12/8/2019 17:46

Interesting rns. Sounds like Muddy Waters alleged activities could land them on prison.

[mad foetus] 12/8/2019 17:37

Petersen is not going to go to zero. The claim won't be extinguished just because Argentina say they won't pay. At some point Argentina will need to return to the IMF or capital markets and when they do, they will have to pay for Petersen. Which assumes that BUR wins the case, and BUR have always said the outcome will take longer than people think.

[williamcooper104] 12/8/2019 17:23

Sk - don't think Peterson going to zero would breach the debt/equity covenant - of course would tank the share price

[eentweedrie] 12/8/2019 17:23

grief some posters on here seem to have the mental age of a 2 year old

[ih_519566] 12/8/2019 17:14

Argentine Assets Tumble After Macri Routed in Surprise Vote



Bad news for Burford! Very bad!

[galatea99] 12/8/2019 16:55

The Kirchnerites will want to keep the (rather numerous) bodies buried for as long as they possibly can. They will stonewall, deny, delay, prevaricate, fudge, try every trick in the book in the Petersen case, to delay a decision and to delay execution of judgement. It is not unknown for people in possession of inconvenient information to have a sudden malaise and mysteriously just drop dead in the street in Buenos Aires. A Peronista government would be very bad news for Burford.

(Not deramping, simply a statement of fact).

[sweet karolina2] 12/8/2019 16:55

It does explain why BUR were so desperate not to answer the question of what the book fair value was without Petersen.

As has been pointed out by MW and all other sceptical commentators the risk does not end when the case is won, but when the money is actually in BUR's bank. There have already been a number of cases where BUR has not got the cash it thought it was going to get and has not been completely upfront and honest when those things have happened.

If it became clear Petersen was going to be a complete zero, would that cause a breach of bond covenants? If so could the rest of the book be liquidated to repay? Is BUR arguably insolvent?