Burford Capital Share Discussion Threads

[adnan17] 17/8/2019 13:08

gettingrich - thank you for the summary

[warren muffet] 17/8/2019 12:52

Mochyn He doesnt work for the Mail then. Block hailed as a hero in todays Mail.

[mochyn] 17/8/2019 12:18

littleweed is a well-known (to me anyway) investigative journalist of high repute.

[humphbumph] 17/8/2019 11:47

jonwig, who is wiinifrth's great friend, is hiding in shame and poverty, having ramped this at well over 2000 and sold all in panic at very near the recent bottom.

[gettingrichslow] 17/8/2019 11:41

What has happened to Jonwig? Not Johnwig, but Jonwig?

[gettingrichslow] 17/8/2019 11:33

Adnan, in reply to your request for a synopsis, it’s not easy to sum up but what struck me reading the first few years of posts is how at each stage of development there have been doubters on all sorts of fronts, and how the share price has often suffered associated setbacks only to power ahead again. Some of the issues a few years ago seem completely trivial now, yet at the time, were quite troubling. Also quite clear that a large number of employees are involved with the valuations so very difficult to see how this could be a real concern. Quite a few situations where there were concerns at how high a case was being valued but then the settlement was higher, showing they were actually being conservative. All in all it seems to me that the company is still near the start of a long journey. Interesting too to read what some of the posters on here were saying 7 or 8 years ago about their hopes and expectations!

[tsmith2] 17/8/2019 11:23

Why are you wasting your time, he ain't interested on being objective, no matter how you explain it, he'll just twist it

[adnan17] 17/8/2019 11:09

You continue to miss the entire point.

The point is there was a commercial contract between Burford and Napo. That contract would have had its own terms and conditions. In that contract most likely it would have stated if Napo you get X, then Burford will get Y. If Napo you get A then Burford get B. If Napo you get C, then Burford get D. If Napo you get E then Burford get F.

Hence, Napo did get SOMETHING. So Burford got something.

But your bias won't allow you to see that there was a separate commercial agreement between Napo and Burford that would have outlined what the fees and how the fees would be payable. You continue to go on and on about the $2.5m, but fail to take into any account that Napo got something to. I.e. Glenmark was forced to purchase supplies from Napo.

So the contract between Burford and Napo could have stated "hey Napo if the court forces Glenmark to buy supplies from you and then will market that in the 140 countries", we (Burford) will take 10% of next 3 years estimated supply.

[cokehookerscars] 17/8/2019 11:07

gettingrichslow17

Any chance you could summarise ?!

[sweet karolina2] 17/8/2019 10:50

Yes very good news that FCA is conducting ‘wide-ranging enquiries’ (which MW have already said they are very happy to assist) eventually, in maybe 3 to 4 years, it might get somewhere with the whole issue of accounting fraud and securities fraud and then pass it over to SFO.

However I think now the killer question has been publicly asked, if BUR cannot / will not provide a satisfactory answer, which stacks up and justifies the booking of $15.8m when BUR knew Napo had lost 2 cases, which were going to destroy its business leaving Napo with no credible way to pay BUR (SFO will no doubt also look into the whole INVESCO involvement in the subsequent shenanigans), then things will unravel for BUR much faster than FCA's ‘wide-ranging enquiries’ can report.

[mad foetus] 17/8/2019 10:50

Very interesting to read thread from the start. One thing I had forgotten was the $45m of funding to a FTSE 20 (!) company announced on 6 Jan 2016. I can't see anything which exactly fits the bill in the BUR list of cases but think it must be the one from late 2015, case number 144379, a piece of mixed portfolio financing, which had an original commitment of $44.3m, a follow on of $22m, and, oddly, only $35.3m of which has been drawn down so far. No result at all yet, which given that we are 3.5 years down the track, is interesting. I'd love to know how much that is valued at in the accounts.
It seems the company in question was BT.

[adnan17] 17/8/2019 10:49

Completely disagree with the following. Given that it was me who found the case and I have read it multiple times.

"But regrettably that was settled in favour of plaintiff Glenmark"

But would be good for Burford to clarify the reason/case for booking the $15.8m in 2013 accounts in order to completely rebuttal all the shorters.

[adnan17] 17/8/2019 10:18

gettingrich - are you able to provide a synopsis as to what your take is? Don't have a few hours unfortunately today.

[adnan17] 17/8/2019 10:17

Saw this on AJ Bell:

Given the high priority which the Financial
Conduct Authority (FCA) puts on protecting
investors and enforcing market integrity, it is
reassuring to learn that the agency is already
undertaking ‘wide-ranging enquiries’ into
the short sale and looking for evidence of
illegal activity.