Burford Capital Share Discussion Threads

[ozzmosiz] 15/8/2019 07:25

Nobby, he posts like a drunk.

[edmondj] 15/8/2019 07:22

Never!

But in the interests of free speech and critical conjecture - supposedly what discussion threads are about, than a bull/bear cheer room, sk2 is welcome. Think for yourself.

[1oughton] 15/8/2019 07:18

As usual you target posters never stocks. Back to the washing bore.

[tracy_moore] 15/8/2019 07:11

Forget about the FCA the simplest way to deal with the likes of SK is to filter, they feed off attention, if nobody responds they get none and wither away into their hole.

[yidarmytom] 15/8/2019 07:01

he's posting from his hovel (now with pool) in Greece

[mad foetus] 15/8/2019 06:58

I think BUR and the FCA should be specifically asked to look at SK's posts. No history, claims to have no position, poss night and day. It does look like the poster is being paid and isn't disclosing that fact. In which case that would again be potential market manipulation.

[johnrxx99] 15/8/2019 05:21

On the other hand, being smart lawyers they have seen how other not so smart people have not got away with things and think they can perfect the fraud.

Always two sides to a story and a bet. Investors are not innocent, they are gamblers.

[winsome] 15/8/2019 04:53

I applaud anyone who exposes fraud. There can also be a flipside. You show how smart you are by picking holes in a compsny's accounts. It 'could' be worse case that BUR played a bit fast and loose in the past to build the business (but I suspect being lawyers they made sure they didn't cross any red lines). So to start undermining what is probably a very profitable business now is to possibly do unwarranted financial damage to innocent shareholders who otherwise, going forward, could see good returns from this business.

I don't know much about TW but hear he has had a chequered past. Let he who has not sinned...

[johnrxx99] 15/8/2019 02:09

SK is a troll - they get paid for every post. It's a job and you work from home, the pub, in the bath etc.

It's quite amusing to see how people on this site think trolls mean what they write, poor dears.

[gettingrichslow] 15/8/2019 00:22

So are you saying BUR is fraudulent?

[gettingrichslow] 14/8/2019 23:42

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???????????

[gettingrichslow] 14/8/2019 23:16

Adnan has singlehandedly dismantled the collection of SweetK posters. And made them look stupid in the process.

[dgdg1] 14/8/2019 23:15

And SK has conveniently not answered by comments from before about how his reply to me about the Napo case was totally incoherent and about how the net realisation issue was fully explained by Burford in its 2010 accounts. He (they?) is hoping everyone forgets about my posts and instead choosing to focus on an easier argument about whether Burford could have got a cut from a losing party. On that point I would say it is possible that Burford would get a cut from an amount saved compared to what was claimed against a defendant, if that was agreed in advance. But I think it's more likely that the $15.8m relate to a different matter that we haven't yet traced. It's clear that Napo was involved in a lot of disputes so there may well be something else that possibly didn't even get to court as the parties settled with a win for Napo, hence no trace on the internet of what happened.

[scubadiverr] 14/8/2019 23:03

Adnan. I,be been thinking that for the last few days. Her initial posts detailed she has no position and that the sidelines where the best place to be. It doesn't add up when someone without ba position would devote as much time. They clearly have resources greater than most and are deliberately attempting to mislead. You've done well today and made them look stupid. You deserve a pat on the back

[monte1] 14/8/2019 23:01

#10733

If they were acting for the defendant the same principles would apply and, in the event of a successful defence, they would presumably be paid from costs avoided or from a resultant counter claim.

[adnan17] 14/8/2019 22:55

So obvious that SK is not one single individual but a corporation. Probably a hedge fund who are rotating analysts throughout the day to maintain panic in Burford.

SK has not sworn at all. Say one swear word. If you were an individual you would have sworn by now.

[sweet karolina2] 14/8/2019 22:54

Monte,

In the actual Glenmark situation, It was Glenmark who raised the suit (just a demand for arbitration not a full blown court case) and BUR was on the side of the party (Napo) who had to pay Glenmark's costs.

[sweet karolina2] 14/8/2019 22:49

adnan,

In your example are you claiming BUR get a cut of the £350k the other side avoided paying if BUR are on the other side?

Yes there are some relatively low lawyer costs to arbitration, you may want a solicitor to look over your filings and you may want your solicitor present at the meetings, but the legal costs are a tiny fraction of what it costs to go to court for a full on jury trial. The whole point of arbitration is to take as much of the expensive lawyer posturing out of the equation and enable the 2 parties to talk sensibly to each other - it is marriage guidance counselling (which may still end in separation) vs a bitter and bloody divorce battle.

There is no $15.8m cut for litigation funders. But you are comfortable with your investment decision - "afflict the comfortable"