Burford Capital Share Discussion Threads

[1corrado] 14/8/2019 14:23

love it she is free she is only 21 year old and size 8 and 1.90M

[onjohn] 14/8/2019 14:12

TW shareprofit tip
lol - see chart

[1corrado] 14/8/2019 14:08

nearly did the 750 but it will I need to be patient.

[jakeah1174] 14/8/2019 14:02

I actually believe SK is neither long nor short. We know this cause Block closed his short position a couple of days ago.

[onjohn] 14/8/2019 13:57

adnan17 14 Aug '19 - 12:33 - 10604
6.000
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...




nice!

[onjohn] 14/8/2019 13:56

^WNKR

ahem
just clearing my throat

[sweet karolina2] 14/8/2019 13:55

I suspect very few influential people read this board however share price is read by lots of them.

[buywell3] 14/8/2019 13:54

buywell wishes to make it plain

His only interest here is scriptwriting the film of this exciting story when it concludes

(needs starting as of now)

He also is interested in the part of head juror

buywell wishes it known he has no personal opinion of where this share will end up and has no position .

Does that sound ok ?

[onjohn] 14/8/2019 13:54

^WNKR

ahem
just clearing my throat

[sweet karolina2] 14/8/2019 13:49

The full Napo Vs Salix story up to 25 Feb 2014.



"As has been previously reported in the company’s [SALIX] filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission, on May 5, 2011, Napo filed a lawsuit against the Company in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, alleging that the Company had engaged in fraudulent conduct, breached its collaboration agreement with Napo dated December 9, 2008, and breached its duty of good faith and fair dealing. Napo also sought a declaratory judgment that Napo had the right to terminate the collaboration agreement and sought unspecified damages in excess of $150 million. On or about December 28, 2011, Napo filed an amended complaint seeking an unspecified amount of damages for alleged breaches of the collaboration agreement by the Company and replacing Napo’s original complaint. The Company [SALIX] filed an answer to the amended complaint and counterclaims on or about January 17, 2012. Discovery concluded last year, and, on May 31, 2013, the Company [SALIX] filed a motion for partial summary judgment. The court heard oral arguments on the motion in August 2013. On December 24, 2013, the court entered a short-form order granting the Company’s [SALIX] motion for partial summary judgment, narrowing the issues in the case. Napo filed an appeal of that decision on January 27, 2014 to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York. On January 29, 2014 the Court vacated and replaced portions of the short-form order with an order continuing to grant the Company’s [SALIX] motion for partial summary judgment, narrowing the issues in the case. Trial on the claims remaining in the case commenced on February 10, 2014 and the jury decided on February 25, 2014 that Salix did not breach the license agreement."

So things were going wrong for Napo since 31 May 13 and that was confirmed on 24 Dec 13 (happy Christmas BUR!) and confirmed again on 29 Jan 14 and finally Napo lost, Salix won on 25 Feb 14. Whilst an appeal was later lodged by Napo against the supreme court order that was well after the 2013 report was published and well after bonds were issued.

The writing was therefore on the wall for this case, which BUR was fair valuing conservatively and prudently through out the second half of 2013.

All this justifies my honestly held opinion that BUR committed accounting fraud in its accounts for the year to 31 Dec 2013 and on the basis of those IMHO fraudulent accounts then IMHO committed securities fraud in Jul 2014 by raising significant debt finance on a false prospectus (the IMHO fraudulent 2013 accounts). Should further evidence come to light from any reliable source, I will of course review that honestly held opinion and provide any changes that in my honestly held opinion are justified on the basis of that evidence.

All of this reinforces my honestly held opinion that BUR lied in its rebuttal of MW by making up another Napo Vs other case, which never existed. Again I will revised this honestly held opinion, should further evidence from any reliable source come to light.

I have no information from any source that is not in the public domain and therefore easily searchable via google, hence there may well be information I am not aware of. I have not and do not expect to make any financial gain in any form from the research I have conducted and made publicly available so PIs can do their own research and make their own investment decisions, which is the sole purpose of both the research and its publication.

[winsome] 14/8/2019 13:11

Shouting 'trust me I have a masters degree' is like shouting 'trust me, I'm a lawyer'.

Regardless of that, MW blew up the whole China fraud scandal but the California company that sold all those fraudulent companies to US investors is still operating today, pain free.

This storm in a tea cup is going nowhere judging by the past record of FCA and US regulators. I suggest sk and Adnan change topic. Seems to some that Napo is the only main issue that MW reraised in their second report

[adnan17] 14/8/2019 13:05

And to be honest I don't care how many Masters degrees you have. If you ever run out of toilet paper as a result of Brexit, you will know what to use.

[adnan17] 14/8/2019 13:04

SK, you have now changed your line of reasoning (your arguments).

Now you are saying you don't believe their response as they cannot corroborate it. So well done for changing your response (and conceding defeat).

But your initial arguments that their responses were convoluted or that they are not allowed to book profits when they make a profit was clearly wrong.

Now what you are asking is as follows (by sticking to my football analogy):

Man Utd can you prove you beat both Chelsea and Liverpool? Why was this not in the papers? I'm sure this could be ASKED in a follow up call with Burford and/or to an email to them.

[winsome] 14/8/2019 13:02

sk, Securities fraud if proven. But a long way from that I'm guessing. Not ducking the question, just pointing out the lack of integrity, dishonesty and ethics of the person (Block) asking the question.

[noreply1] 14/8/2019 12:58

Looking for a 730 entry ...

[sweet karolina2] 14/8/2019 12:56

Adnan,

Why don't you find evidence to corroborate the existence and preferably outcome (if there was a damages award figure that would also give credibility to $15.8m for BUR - must be a significant case for BUR to get that so must be some record on the internet somewhere) of the Napo Vs other case?

I have 2 Masters Degrees (critical analysis is what the masters level is all about in any subject area). I am not being stupid. I have also tackled a number of issues like this in the past and my track record of being proved right (companies in liquidation, CEO's sacked, auditors fined etc) is not bad.

winsome,

you are deliberately ducking the question to avoid giving the answer which you know to be "Securities Fraud"

[adnan17] 14/8/2019 12:52

SK, do you not understand English. The Burford statement was as follows:

"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."

How in the above paragraphs is it booking profits early. I don't think you understand basic English.

No, I think you do, but rather are a shorter and wish to spread false accusations.

[clocktower] 14/8/2019 12:50

The market will have no faith in the BoD until such times they make public all the answers to the serious questions that have been put to them by MW.

[sweet karolina2] 14/8/2019 12:48

"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."

I am glad you realise the importance of Napo and that it is not something that happened ages ago and therefore irrelevant - you are 100% correct on that.

However Napo is not the only single case issue, but more importantly resolving the Napo questions favourably for BUR does nothing to resolve the overall accounting issue. The only way to do that is, as I have been saying, get independent accountants to redo accounts for every year and then explain the differences - overall they should paint the same picture up until around 2017.

Reasons for differences would be: Booking Napo prematurely and other similar issues which should be covered by an overall prudent and conservative approach, ie balance out or even show BUR made more profit and cash overall. The timing of profits and cash flows will obviously be different, IMF method is much more lumpy, but those are the only acceptable differences and overall total profit and cash generation to 2017 should be more than or the same as what has been reported under the BUR method. If that is the case, then a few old potentially dubious decisions really do not make a material difference to the viability and profitability of the business.

Continuing to bluster and dissemble on tackling these key accounting and governance issues is what is damaging investor confidence and BUR will not see significant rises in share price and will struggle to get more bonds away at sensible yields until they are addressed, regardless of what MW or anyone else says or how many shares PMDRs buy.