Burford Capital Share Discussion Threads

[1corrado] 14/8/2019 15:59

so glad i sold at 821ish to day and bag few quids.

[adnan17] 14/8/2019 15:56

Lol,
typical SK response. It wasn't a loss. Very clearly it states a SETTLEMENT. Do you not know the meaning of a SETTLEMENT? And Burford get paid when there is a SETTLEMENT.

And Burford have always said they prefer to enter a SETTLEMENT verdict, as they get paid quicker.

So SK will you answer the following question, simple YES/NO.

If Burford's client Napo reaches a SETTLEMENT and Burford receives a portion of the SETTLEMENT can they book it as a Profit. YES/NO?

[dijon52] 14/8/2019 15:46

https://www.moneymarketing.co.uk/a-hedge-fund-hits-back-with-a-call-to-fca-to-probe-woodford-held-burford-capital/

[winsome] 14/8/2019 15:44

I think people are losing interest in this now. Not even MW twitter getting many tweets. Market didn't react to his latest report yesterday.

I'm thinking that the NAPO thing is a non issue and the real questions lie around unrealised gains and cash receipts. Its something I emailed BUR about last week - to present easy to understand info to retail investors and that's what MW have now broadly asked BUR to do. I want to see how the cash receipts lag these unrealised gains. I'd expect BUR will do so in due course but not at MW's bidding. In their own time. Next few weeks will do. I also expect they'll announce other measures by end of Sept. If they don't then I lose interest in buying back into BUR and I'll move on.

[adnan17] 14/8/2019 15:29

Jeez....why are people on this blog long term investors in Burford if you don't understand the business model. The initial contention was that it was Napo V Salix and the profits should not have been booked. But some research shows that there was another case Napo V Glenmark.

The whole point is once there is a SETTLEMENT, both parties have agreed to SETTLE. Hence you cannot appeal a SETTLEMENT. As both parties have agreed to the terms and conditions. And both parties have SIGNED.

Burford can then "book a profit". It already admits that the cash receipt may take a little while.

Hence, in this case, the case had SETTLED. There is no further discussion, so Burford could book a profit for the 2013 "Reporting Period".

[lefrene] 14/8/2019 15:23

adnan17, But isn't the contention that Burford booked a 'profit' before the case was completed and payment made? ie bringing forward an expected payment that had yet to be made.

[ozzmosiz] 14/8/2019 15:19

another multi-alias hack to filter above

[ghostme] 14/8/2019 15:15

1corrado looks like we were right with the sell off i think more shorts to open after close. 699 order placed

[adnan17] 14/8/2019 15:10

SK, did you learn how to use Google in your Masters course? Or was that reserved for PhD level only.

Anyway here is a case that settled in September 2013: Napo v Glenmark

hxxps://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1585608/000104746917003695/a2232030zex-10_60.htm

Some of the key points are as follows:

"Napo will supply CPL at a price to Glenmark which is equal to Napo’s documented costs for acquisition, processing, packaging, shipment, and allocated overhead plus twenty-five percent (25%) and Glenmark will provide Napo with a rolling 12-month forecast of its volume requirements for CPL. However, Glenmark shall have the unequivocal right to use an alternate source of supply for CPL or to use sources of supply for CPL in addition to Napo provided that (i) Glenmark pays Napo a twenty-five percent (25%) markup above Glenmark’s costs for acquisition, processing, packaging, shipment, and allocated overhead, if any, to obtain CPL from such alternate or additional supplier, and (ii) Glenmark informs Napo of the identity of the alternate or additional supplier as well as the quantities and price of CPL purchased from the alternate or additional supplier."

Confidentiality Agreement
"The Parties agree to keep strictly confidential and not communicate, disclose, or discuss with any third party (including but not limited to Salix Pharmaceuticals, Inc.), or authorize their agents or attorneys to communicate, disclose, or discuss with any third party, the terms of the Settlement Agreement or the Awards, except that the Parties may disclose the Settlement Agreement and the Awards:"

This may have been the "Other" case that Burford was referring to in 2013.

To conclude, there was a SETTLEMENT. And the whole point of Burford's existence is they get paid when there is a WIN or a SETTLEMENT.

[dgdg1] 14/8/2019 15:09

Nice professionaly worded disclaimers about honestly-held opinions from the disinterested observer

[qruz] 14/8/2019 15:02

Does anyone have a source for the Napo Pharma filings when it was on AIM?

[1corrado] 14/8/2019 14:52

750 will come and could be 700 in the morning my at 778 and down to 680 is correct but I sold at 821ish at the end to day so not bad after all and looking below 750 to 700 my new entry point hahahaha

[adnan17] 14/8/2019 14:47

Also just because you cannot find it does not mean it does not exist.

The case may not have been labelled as Napo. It may have been a subsidiary of Napo or a Joint Venture. The possibilities of how it related to Napo is endless.

[ghostme] 14/8/2019 14:42

wall street sell off bur sell off market makers go on the spook like most mornings

[dgdg1] 14/8/2019 14:42

What's your basis for thinking that Burford lied about the other litigation matter? THe fact that you can't find any public court records is no proof as it may have settled before it even came to court.

[yidarmytom] 14/8/2019 14:40

how do you know it "will open down tomorrow"?

[wardy333] 14/8/2019 14:39

Bots in control keeping it below £8.00p , they might lift it this afternoon , who knows, City Boys in full control as they like it.

[ghostme] 14/8/2019 14:39

might be best to wait until tomorrow morning to buy now as it will open down tomorrow again to

[1corrado] 14/8/2019 14:36

correct with wall street perhaps even below 700.

[ghostme] 14/8/2019 14:35

750 should be on later hard hats at ready as wall street crashes everything

[1corrado] 14/8/2019 14:27

no no this is my wife............i have no children and she is after my money been 72 obviously and been divorce five times at a high cost.