Burford Capital Share Discussion Threads

[monte1] 14/8/2019 22:49

#10729

Let’s take it down to basics.

1. I raise lawsuit against you for an alleged breach financed by BUR.

A. You offer out of court settlement and I accept - BUR get paid.

B. You don’t offer (nor accept my offer of) an OOC settlement (proceed to 2) - BUR not paid yet.

2. Case goes to court.

C. Court finds in my favour - BUR get paid.

D. Court finds in your favour - BUR don’t get paid.

[sweet karolina2] 14/8/2019 22:41

"The more i discuss with SK the more I realise what a great company Burford is. And the more confident I am of its future."

That is fantastic news adnan, you have done your own in depth research asked all your own questions and analysed the available information and are now totally confident in your investing decision - brilliant as you can now take full responsibility for the outcome of your own investing decision.

So when FRC investigate 2013 accounts which they will:



and find that there was nothing like $15.8m returned to BUR from the Glenmark arbitration and pass the files to SFO to investigate securities fraud you won't be trying to blame anyone else for the consequences to your investment.

In the words of Daniel Yu:

I believe that activist short sellers throughout history have furthered justice by providing the public with new and often contrarian opinions and facts – usually at significant personal, reputational, legal, and financial risk – information that the public would otherwise not be privy to. I have seen this resulting information discovery lead to the fulfillment of justice in the following ways:


Financial crime prevention

Justice in the commercial marketplace

Civil/criminal prosecution of companies and their executives

Corporate governance reform and enhanced financial disclosures

Accountability in the court of public opinion Justice is furthered when activist short selling lives out the true meaning of its creed:
“Speak truth to power.”
and
“Comfort the afflicted, afflict the comfortable.”

[adnan17] 14/8/2019 22:40

Monte

In your example what was the Asset? Let's call it cash. You wanted £1m. I didn't want to give you £1m.

We both then settle. I give you £650k. We settled. At least I didn't give you the full £1m.

Burford take a cut from you if they were sponsoring you. So a cut from £650k.

[adnan17] 14/8/2019 22:34

Lol.
Those fees are just for filing fees. They do not take into account lawyer costs.

Similarly filing for divorce is cheap (see below link). its the lawyers fees that take it into the thousands.

hxxps://www.divorce-online.co.uk/help-and-advice/how-to-file-for-divorce/

hxxps://www.finder.com/get-divorced-california

[monte1] 14/8/2019 22:34

Adman

What are you blathering on about?


There is no win. Both sides agree to SETTLE. The disputed asset is shared according to the Settlement terms and conditions. And then Burford take their cut from the Settlement

I feel I have been wronged and suffered financial harm as a result.

I raise an action against you for damages.

Upon review of the facts, you decide that my claim may not be without merit and you don’t want to take the risk of going to court for a number of reasons - size of potential award, legal costs, management costs and effort, reputational damage, lack of confidentiality.

You therefore make me an offer to settle out of court, almost certainly at a lower value than claimed (and less than a favourable court award).

I choose to accept offer because I have risk that a court will not find in my favour as well as similar reasons to you (cost etc).

I have won - I got most of what I wanted (and BUR get their cut)

Otherwise it goes to court and the finding and award (possibly including the quantum) will be at large and based on the courts interpretation of the facts and persuasiveness of the evidence in relation to the contract in dispute and common law.

[sweet karolina2] 14/8/2019 22:25

Here are ICDR's fees:



Why does anyone need litigation funding to pay these?

[adnan17] 14/8/2019 22:23

The more i discuss with SK the more I realise what a great company Burford is. And the more confident I am of its future. Best these shorters now have is "How do large corporations have money to pay". Lol

SK is the kind of person that argues the Earth is not spinning. If the Earth was spinning then how do planes land on a spinning planet.

[gettingrichslow] 14/8/2019 22:21

I never thought I’d say this, but Bulletant’s post makes a lot more sense when compared to SweetK’s boring drivel...

[sweet karolina2] 14/8/2019 22:20

"There is no win. Both sides agree to SETTLE. The disputed asset is shared according to the Settlement terms and conditions. And then Burford take their cut from the Settlement."

Ah the wisdom of Solomon "cut the baby in half and give half to both women". So which bit of the half baby does BUR get an arm or a leg or is it an arm and a leg ($15.8m from a cheap and cheerful arbitration LoL).

Dear oh dear you really don't know how things work in the real world do you?

[gettingrichslow] 14/8/2019 22:19

Adnan, it all suddenly makes sense - SweetK is one of these nerdy types who think they’re really clever (the two degrees point etc) but actually are clueless about real life. That would also explain why she posts here 24/7 - no friends, no family, just some textbooks and a smartphone...

[adnan17] 14/8/2019 22:10

SK, you have two degrees? What a complete waste of time?

Are you not embarrassed with your comment "if both sides win in a settlement why was there a dispute and where does the money come from"

Honestly with a comment like that you should not be commenting on a company that specialises in litigation finance. Especially if you have no understanding what a Settlement of assets are.

There is no win. Both sides agree to SETTLE. The disputed asset is shared according to the Settlement terms and conditions. And then Burford take their cut from the Settlement.

And what do you mean "why was there a dispute". Are you for real? It's because both parties wanted the asset all to themselves or because one party wanted more of the asset and the other party didn't accept.

Just to try and hit the point home. In a divorce the assets are divided. Both parties settle. But lawyers always get paid.

Can you at least post sensible arguments.

[gettingrichslow] 14/8/2019 22:08

SweetK, have you got a partner? Or children? Or friends? Or a social life? Or hobbies other than posting non-stop about a company you have no position in??
Do you like eating? Or drinking? Or smoking? Or listening to music? Or reading books? Or travelling? Or playing sport? Or watching TV? Or anything???????????

[showme01] 14/8/2019 22:06

Is this so hard to understand. Most companies avoid court at all cost, in part as they don't have the confidence take on nearly clear cut cases as what plays on the mind is 'what if I lose?'. Then you get a litigation lawyer who has all money in terms of lost fees if they lose. It changes everything if you are the company being pursued. Why have Burford taken on this case. They lose all their fees if they lose, they must be confident in winning. This usually gets settled before any court hearing. Easy money for Burford. If the pursued think they still have a good chance, court it goes too and in most cases litigation lawyers win. That is the situation. Percentage of win, percentage of settlement or lose all fees. Great business model imo.

[sweet karolina2] 14/8/2019 21:57

oh monte don't spoil the fun!

Oh go on then. Trial results are made public, courts are public places, but settlements are kept confidential or at least most of the details are. However if one side was awarded costs and fees in a settlement does that mean the settlement was in their favour or not?

For example would "WHEREAS in the Partial Final Award, the Panel reserved for further hearing the reasonableness and specific quantum of fees and costs to be awarded to Glenmark" indicate a settlement in favour of Glenmark?

[monte1] 14/8/2019 21:43

adman

You are getting a bit crossed up there matey.

If their litigant wins at trial BUR receive a return in accordance with the agreement.

If the litigant is offered and accepted a settlement by the defendant prior to trial, there is a mechanism that provides a return for BUR.

In both cases they are only recompensed when the litigant that they are financing either wins or an out of court settlement is made in their favour.

[sweet karolina2] 14/8/2019 21:41

Adnan,

If both sides win in a settlement so there is always a cut for BUR to take, why was there a dispute in the first place and where does the money come from to pay both the winning sides?

[adnan17] 14/8/2019 21:36

So Burford make money from a Win or a SETTLEMENT. In the football betting world this would be the equivalent of betting on Win or Draw and getting paid out. Only time you don't get paid is when you fully lose after final appeal. Under any other circumstances Burford gets paid.

Those are the terms and conditions.

And that's why its such a great business model. You might not agree with it ethically, but that does not make it illegal or a bad business. I don't agree ethically with BP polluting the atmosphere, but people still invest.

[adnan17] 14/8/2019 21:33

I think these large corporations understand what SETTLEMENT means, unlike some of the posters on this site.

If you don't like the terms and conditions then don't approach Burford for litigation finance.

[yidarmytom] 14/8/2019 21:07

"fantastic litigation funding service."

sk bullish on BUR now, well done, time for another dip in the new pool?