Burford Capital Share Discussion Threads

[jakeah1175] 16/8/2019 14:59

Getting sums it up perfectly tbh with "Is it even possible to answer a flurry of accusations without being persuasive, evasive, defensive, offensive, aggressive or too passive? I think not.".
Would like to add that Qverity report ends with "Client is responsible for any claims made or brought against them or QVerity, Inc. based
upon any further dissemination of the opinions stated herein." what a perfect business Qverity have - find everything in a report 'persuasive, evasive, defensive, offensive, aggressive or too passive'
which covers all bases, get paid handsomely for it, and all the while having a disclaimer that there is no comeback on them personally. Might make Qverity happy to provide anything their client wants wouldn't it?
This is approaching tin foil hat territory now.
Burford are a great business now MASQUERADING as a poor one.

[nobbygnome] 16/8/2019 14:57

Game set and match....

I think I am beginning to understand why some people despise TW so much....

[adnan17] 16/8/2019 14:52

SK, what is so hard to understand:

In 2011: Napo terminated the contract and I quote:

"Glenmark has failed to develop, commercialize, file for or gain regulatory approval for crofelemer for use in people living with HIV/AIDS"

So Napo felt cheated that Glenmark was not fulfilling its side of the bargain

hxxps://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20111212006268/en/Napo-Terminates-Glenmark-Pharmaceuticals-Failure-Commercially-Develop

Glenmark then, and I quote:

"Glenmark Pharmaceuticals has filed arbitration claims against Napo Pharmaceuticals Inc with the American Arbitration Association, seeking a declaration of its exclusive rights to diarrhoea drug Crofelemer in 140 countries.

The statement seeks a declaration of exclusive rights to develop, commercialise and distribute Crofelemer in 140 countries, including exclusive right to distribute the drug through relief agencies in these countries, Glenmark said in a filing to the Bombay Stock Exchange today."

hxxps://www.thehindubusinessline.com/companies/glenmark-files-arbitration-claims-against-napo/article23055487.ece

Then the Court Settlement obliged Glenmark to do the following:

"Glenmark will be responsible for obtaining regulatory approvals and/or product registrations in every country in which Glenmark has rights to market, sell and distribute pursuant to this Agreement, but only to the extent of the indications licensed to Glenmark pursuant to Section 2.1; provided, however, that if Glenmark declines to enter a particular country in the General Territory or in the AAID-Specific Territory, then Napo will have the right to enter that market (but only for the indications which Glenmark has declined to market) to obtain the necessary regulatory approval(s) and or product registrations. If Glenmark seeks the regulatory approvals and/or product registrations, then such regulatory approvals and/or product registrations will be in Glenmark’s name; and, if Glenmark declines to pursue them, then such regulatory approvals and/or product registrations will be in Napo’s name. If additional clinical work, beyond that conducted by Napo as documented in the Regulatory Package, is required to support product approval and registration in the Glenmark Territory, Glenmark will bear the expense of such additional clinical work. If Glenmark declines to enter a particular country in the General Territory or in the AAID-Specific Territory, then Napo shall bear the expense of any such additional clinical work. If, after Napo registers a product for which Napo has undertaken to conduct the necessary clinical trials and/or obtain the necessary regulatory approvals in a particular country in the General Territory or in the AAID-Specific Territory (a “Napo Product”), and if Glenmark subsequently decides to enter that country by marketing the Napo Product or by registering its own product based upon Licensed IP related to that Napo Product, then Glenmark will reimburse Napo for fifty percent (50%) of the expenses associated with conducting those clinical trials and obtaining the regulatory approvals for that country."

hxxps://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1585608/000104746917003695/a2232030zex-10_59.htm

So Napo was not getting any revenue from the product as Glenmark not fulfilling their side of the bargain. The court forced Glenmark to fulfil their side of the bargain. Hence, selling the product for Napo will have a lot of value (most likely in the millions). And then Burford took a cut of the value.

How you think this is fraudulent beggars belief.

[luckymouse] 16/8/2019 14:51

I ran this BB through an online polygraph site and Sweet Karolinas name came up the most frequently lol :D

[sweet karolina2] 16/8/2019 14:50

Referring to post 10888, available in the plus one header, my ranking of the 4 credible hypotheses remains unchanged at last update ie C,D,B,A

How do others, who do not have their heads buried in the sand, now rank them?

[williamcooper104] 16/8/2019 14:38

The Fair Value of the NAV must be c£4.50-£5.50 - given Argentinian credit spread movement So it's trading at a huge premium to its NAV - it may well be worth it - but it's not cheap It's possible that Nasdaq buys the earnings multiple argument But it may not and we may never find out if it does

[achenaton] 16/8/2019 14:20

hxxps://jaguarhealth.gcs-web.com/node/7681/html

[achenaton] 16/8/2019 14:20

Extract below, taken from - hxxps://jaguarhealth.gcs-web.com/node/7681/html

8. Debt and Warrants
The following is a summary of the debt issued by Napo.
Litigation Debt
In December 2011 and April 2013, Napo entered into a Forward Purchase Agreement(s) (together, the “Agreements221;) with a third party (the “PurchaserR21;) to provide funding for Napo’s litigation activities with Salix and its arbitration with Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Limited. The terms of the Agreements included a return on funds advanced, depending upon the amount of time lapsed from the initial funding, in the event Napo was successful in any part of its litigation or arbitration. In October 2014, after a successful outcome in the litigation, Napo and the Purchaser restructured what had become the existing debt under Agreements into a note (the “Financing Agreement”) with a principal amount of $30,000,000 due January 1, 2017, and Napo recognized a gain on the restructuring of the debt. The loan under the Financing Agreement accrues interest monthly at 18% per annum, with monthly accrued interest added to principal on the first day of the following month.

The above narrative includes "after a successful outcome in the litigation", presumably because some part(s) of its litigation or arbitration were regarded as a success.

So, does the $30,000,000 comprise funds advanced + return on funds advanced? Does any of it relate to the Glenmark settlement in December 2013?

Does anyone know? For sure?

[bbmsionlypostafter] 16/8/2019 14:18

Based on what OzzMosiz?

Until they answer the Napo question you don't know what's what. Pretty much bargepole until that's cleared up.

Anyway, aren't we overdue for another director buy RNS?

[ozzmosiz] 16/8/2019 14:13

It's not just a traders share. It's priced for anyone wanting to but them cheap and lock them away too.

[dsmith57] 16/8/2019 14:05

This, for now anyway,is a traders share. Unfortunately it will be seen by many that Muddy Waters attack,at least in some fronts, has proven correct. Trust has been damaged and the Board's suggestion that the changes have been made as a result of listening to shareholders' is pure can't. Muddy Waters have forced that change and everybody knows it. The Board have capitulated to the shorters. This has given MW new oxygen. I think that there will be more from them. They will have held back a few bullets. Talk of £12 or £14 is very premature. I hope it will come for my sake but if it ever does it will be a long while in the future.

[mad foetus] 16/8/2019 13:49

Look at the daily chart. Anyone short now is an amateur. Could have closed out sub £5, £6, £7, £8...wtf!

[winsome] 16/8/2019 13:47

yes clocktower, and an earthquake in the middle of London could open up and swallow up the entire stock exchange. Honestly, so much drivel being posted on here.

[clocktower] 16/8/2019 13:42

SK are you just advertising shareprophets on this thread?

BUR not getting it all their way though today, contrary to what a lot were saying when yesterdays RNS was released.

No good covering the cracks in the walls with wallpaper - the cracks remain and could yet get a lot worse, and like a house, a huge sinkhole could appear out of the blue.

[winsome] 16/8/2019 13:41

The position we are now at is that MW put all their best shots into their first report. They only repeated a few in their 2nd after a good rebuttal and started exaggerating more innuendo about the board and what directors may or may not earn.

Now all some people seem to be hanging on is old news from 2013 that is irrelevant today. Is that it? Really?

It was clear as day that if BUR appointed Warren Buffett as CFO the shorters would moan about it. Once they are on the NYSE/NASDAQ with a fully compliant board, which seems probable in the short term, arguably any accounting concerns would then be history.

[dgdg1] 16/8/2019 13:40

SK I just think it's absurd they you think you have proof of criminal fraud on the basis of what you think must have been the agreement between Burford and Napo. Neither you nor I knows what it was, there could have been all sorts of possibilities and reasons for what Napo agreed to. We don't know what would have been defined as a success for Napo. The settlement says "WHEREAS the Parties have reached a resolution of certain remaining disputes as memorialized in this Settlement Agreement". We don't know exactly what each side wanted or how important each thing was. And basically this seems to be your entire case against Burford, it's just absurd.