Burford Capital Share Discussion Threads

[1corrado] 14/8/2019 12:41

BUR WILL GO DOWN TO 750 AND THEN i WILL BE A BUYER AGAIN.

[blueteam] 14/8/2019 12:35

I see shorters in trouble on INTU.

[adnan17] 14/8/2019 12:33

Yes everyone should do their own research.

My research is based on the fact that Burford have litigation investments of $1.8bn on their balance sheet. If they keep winning the majority of cases which they do and we have the one or two large case wins, then it is not unrealistic to assume that you could have a long term growth rate of 30%-50% (as long as they keep re-investing winnings).

So assuming a 30% return (and that is a prudent estimate) over 5 years means the investment of $1.8bn could turns a profit of $6.6bn in 5 years. I am a long term investor so it suits my horizon

Burford are selective in their cases. Last year they invested in only 85 cases from analyzing 1400.

Finally, the largest 100 law firms have total revenues of over $200bn per annum (figure will be higher now most likely as the below is from 2017). I don't know how many law firms there are. But with Burford I get to get a piece of that action.



There are negatives with Burford but these can be fixed:

1. US listing
2. Disclose CEO / CFO salaries
3. Rotation of independent directors
4. With hindsight Burford should have suspended the shares immediately after the MW release for 24-48 hours. Then issued its rebuttal. This way all investors would have had access to both the MW research and the Burford rebuttal and be able to make up its own mind. To allow the share price to continue falling on the day of the release was erroneous.

[winsome] 14/8/2019 12:28

SK, what is the technical / legal term for spooking investors with false claims of insolvency, grabbing their money and running?

I don't have the full facts on NAPO either way but what is clear is that BLOCK is deeply hypocritical and should be in the dock regardless of whether BUR should be.

[sweet karolina2] 14/8/2019 12:21

Where do you get that BUR received equity in 2013 from? In Oct 2014 they converted the investment to debt in Napo, the equity came with the IPO in 2016 and that had look ins and minimum sell prices.

Have you tried google searching for this other case? You know it is napo, you know you want a verdict or order and you know it is 2013.

My google search found this:



"SAN FRANCISCO, Feb. 3, 2015 /PRNewswire/ -- Napo Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ("Napo") announced that it has filed its opening brief in the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York seeking to reverse the December 2013 Order of the Supreme Court of the State of New York that prevented important claims from being tried to verdict by a jury in the Napo vs. Salix Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ("Salix") litigation. "

So in Dec 2013 Napo got an unfavourable order from the supreme court.

Is this not even more reason why in the 2013 accounts should not have booked a return on a Napo case?

[share holder] 14/8/2019 12:15

Schall Law Firm are considering bringing a shareholder class action against Burford.

[sweet karolina2] 14/8/2019 12:12

winsome,

What is the technical / legal term for raising money on the basis of a false prospectus?

adnan,

I am not asking you to blindly believe my opinion. In fact what I am saying is do not blindly believe any one. Do your own research - check the facts presented, search for corroboration of them (eg something that corroborates the existence of this other matter which concluded first. Then critically analyse all the information you now have to form your own opinion. On the basis of your own opinion make your own investing decisions.

That way if your investing decision turns out to be a bad one you are able to take ownership of it yourself rather than looking for someone else to blame.

In doing that critical analysis the hard part is avoiding optimism and confirmation bias.

[adnan17] 14/8/2019 12:08

I think Napo argument is fundamental to the whole business model. If Burford is "falsely" booking profits. If MW's Napo accusation had been correct then Burford would have collapsed.

However, it was not correct. Burford categorically explained that the booking of profits did not relate to Napo v Salix but it related to Napo v Others.

Burford's business model is that it gets a share of profits when it wins a litigation case. Hence, if Napo V Others resulted in a payout and Burford received $15m (in equity) then that is a profit. Any further money from other cases is a bonus as they forwarded $7.4m.

Now I do agree that they should not be receiving equity for winning cases. Only cash. But Burford did say that non-cash winnings were very few (only 6 I believe).

But the whole saga does not perpetuate fraud. MW were wrong. And the business model remains intact.

[winsome] 14/8/2019 12:00

The NAPO argument is never going to be won by anyone, not even in court, I suspect.

Truth could be somewhere in the middle. If it is, no one lost money investing in BUR from this very old issue. The most damage to shareholders was indisputably done by MW by calling out BUR as being insolvent. Now that's what I call profiting from misleading information.

[tsmith2] 14/8/2019 11:57

Maybe they should have asked the questions to BUR before they called it Enron-esque

[adnan17] 14/8/2019 11:53

And again you are lying. You state their response is tucked away. Your credibility sinks further.

It is the 3rd and 4th paragraph under the heading "Point 1 - Napo/Jaguar".

It takes me longer to read your responses, then to get to Burford's clear response in the 3rd/4th paragraph that profit was not a result of Napo v Salix, but Napo v Others.

[adnan17] 14/8/2019 11:51

The following is taken from the 3rd and 4th paragraphs under the heading "Point 1 - Napo/Jaguar"

"One of Burford's hallmarks is to do deep diligence on its potential investments and seek structures when
appropriate that are as principal protective as possible. Thus, Burford structured its financing agreement with Napo
so that its recovery could come from not just Napo's dispute with Salix, but from other litigation as well.
As it transpired, a litigation matter other than the Salix matter resolved first, and resulted in an entitlement for
Burford. That is the figure shown in Burford's 2013 reporting."

So not sure how that is hidden or convoluted or complex.

In relation to booking profits. If Burford have forwarded $7.4m for multiple litigation cases (one of them being Salix) and some of the litigation cases (not the Salix) result in a return of $15m. Then why should they not book that as a profit.

They forwarded $7.4m for multiple cases. In 2013 they received equity worth $15m. So they booked it. What does it matter what happens in the other cases now. There is only upside from there.

Once again SK, your response is extremely complex/convoluted and highly misleading.

[galatea99] 14/8/2019 11:50

It all depends what the meaning of "is" is!

[millennial] 14/8/2019 11:45

Problem with Tom W is that you are not an independent thinker, Sir

You are merely regurgitating stuff from others.

[adnan17] 14/8/2019 11:40

Anyone know how to join the bondholder call?

[clocktower] 14/8/2019 11:34

Insiders buying stock is nothing more than a damage limitation exercise imo, as would be a share buyback, until one really has all the facts and figures it`s like ploughing your money into the ground and hoping the seed will germinate, and the weather will be kind and the crop will grow,and you will have a harvest that someone wants, unlike the cauliflower growers who have suffered from the changing weather patterns in the UK this year.

There are those that will now not touch this with a barge poll, so the chances of it returning towards its former levels are pretty remote. Fund managers would have a lot off egg on their faces if they dare back this now, if things go wrong, as there is a lack of clear cut visibility surrounding the accounts.

[withoutt] 14/8/2019 11:32

MW latest Tweet

[jakeah1175] 14/8/2019 11:30

MW just tweeted 7 questions they'd like someone to ask for them on the bondholders call. Fighting hard to to keep reputation as an activist rather than an opportunist..

[bbmsionlypostafter] 14/8/2019 11:17

LOOOOOOOOOOOOOLLLLLLLLZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Chimers
14 Aug '19 - 11:13 - 10583 of 10584
0 1 0
TheDisciplinedInvestor14 Aug '19 - 11:09 - 10581 of 10582
0 0 0
Anyone knows how to get access to the bondholder's conference call today?

Yes just dial 999 ...it's what they will be doing.

[blusteradjuster] 14/8/2019 11:15

Indeed Mf.

SK is once again churning out the supposition (see unsupported claims below) as part of the general FUD creation exercise.


“Did they? it was all very convoluted, it actually confirmed a lot of what MW had said and quite frankly when you analyse it properly in the context of the time line it just does not stack up.”

[adnan17] 14/8/2019 11:15

Meaning of convoluted - extremely complex, difficult to follow

What part of the following is difficult to follow (do you not understand English?):

"As it transpired, a litigation matter other than the Salix matter resolved first, and resulted in an entitlement for
Burford. That is the figure shown in Burford's 2013 reporting."

Like I said you would have more credibility if you said I don't believe their response. But to state that their response to the Napo profit booking is "complex" "convoluted" is just you frankly lying.

[mad foetus] 14/8/2019 11:13

Actually, the Napo case is a fantastic example of how portfolio financing and cross-collateralisation between cases works. You start off funding one case for a client, end up funding a number of their cases, and you cross-collateralise so that as long as one of them wins you are almost guaranteed to make a profit.

[chimers] 14/8/2019 11:13

TheDisciplinedInvestor14 Aug '19 - 11:09 - 10581 of 10582
0 0 0
Anyone knows how to get access to the bondholder's conference call today?

Yes just dial 999 ...it's what they will be doing.

[adnan17] 14/8/2019 11:10

SK in response to your comment

1. "It is all very convoluted" - how was their response convoluted? MW discussed Napo v Salix case. Burford stated that the return shown in 2013 was not referring to the Napo v Salix case. How is that convoluted?

This is what the RNS stated:

"As it transpired, a litigation matter other than the Salix matter resolved first, and resulted in an entitlement for
Burford. That is the figure shown in Burford's 2013 reporting."

And the above was in response to the MW accusation that Napo v Salix had not concluded until 2016.

So how is that convoluted. Your responses are wishy-washy. No substance. Just hot air. Just throwing out words. Making false accusations.

You would have more credibility if you said I don't believe Burford's response. That is fair enough. You could say that. But to say it is convoluted is just plain wrong, very deceiving and frankly it ruins your credibility.