Burford Capital Share Discussion Threads

[adnan17] 18/8/2019 00:08

So in a nutshell

"Napo will not pay the legal fees UNTIL / UNLESS Glenmark pay the Royalty fees"

[adnan17] 18/8/2019 00:05

Last sentence is very clear

"Napo has received no royalty payments from Glenmark and therefore has made no payments towards the $2,500,000".

Hence until the royalty payments aren't paid there will never be any payment to Glenmark. Very clear. Until Glenmark don't make royalty payments, Napo will not make payment. Glenmark has to take first step. Very clear. Also note (1) at the bottom is also very clear. Settlement liability is payable out of royalties from Glenmark.

So if Glenmark ever want to get paid they have to make royalty payments. Step 1 is Glenmark's royalty payments.

Napo cannot pay Glenmark until Glenmark pay royalty fees to Napo.

[mad foetus] 17/8/2019 23:27

FFS, there is nothing to argue about.
The debt exists until Glenmark generate sufficient royalties to take enough of Napo's share to discharge the debt.
But the only person who can enforce the debt is Glenmark. And they can only enforce the debt against the royalties.
So to all intents and purposes, there is no debt.
All that exists is a potential revenue stream from Glenmark to Napo which, if it ever comes to fruition will be reduced by the size of the debt. It's not rocket science.

[monte1] 17/8/2019 23:02

#11473

Very odd then that the full $2.5m is showing as a liability in Napo’s schedule of liabilities incorporated in jaguar Heath’s SEC Filing submission.

It is all there in black and white (there is even a bit of blue thrown in for good measure).

Glenmark

In December 2013, Napo and Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Limited settled an arbitration proceeding between the parties (the Settlement Agreement). In the Settlement Agreement, amongst other things, with respect to Glenmark’s unresolved claim for legal fees and costs in the arbitration proceeding, Glenmark and Napo agreed that Napo will make payment to Glenmark in the amount of $2,500,000 in full satisfaction of Glenmark’s claim for legal fees and costs in the arbitration. The full payment will be deferred and offset against future royalty payments due under Article 5 of the Glenmark Collaboration Agreement which addresses royalty payments to Napo, with 50% of each royalty payment due to Napo under Article 5 being paid and the other 50% being offset against the amount Napo has agreed to pay for legal fees and costs, until the full $2,500,000 offset. As of June 30, 2017, Napo has received no royalty payments from Glenmark and therefore has made no payments toward the $2,500,000.

The following table sets forth scheduled future principal payments as of June 30, 2017:

Amounts Due in Years Ending
December 31,

Principal
Amount

2017

$
58,540,995

2018

—

2019

2,625,338

Thereafter (1)

2,500,000

Total:

$
63,666,333


(1) Settlement liability is payable out of royalties received from Glenmark Collaboration Agreement. See Note 5 and Note 12. Napo has received no royalties from the Glenmark Collaboration Agreement and is unable to determine when, if ever, such royalties will be received. Future principal payments after 2019 include unamortized debt discount of $483,491.

[blah blah] 17/8/2019 22:56

Bless. Carry on. If it helps I think you are on the side of the angels.

[adnan17] 17/8/2019 22:53

Blah Blah - I'm an old man. My life revolves around young grandchildren. They are tucked up in bed. I got nothing else to do.

[gettingrichslow] 17/8/2019 22:50

Again, Adnan wins!

[adnan17] 17/8/2019 22:44

I refer you to point 7 of the settlement agreement

"And offset against Future Royalty Payments"

Very crystal clear as to where any payments to come from. Absolutely no discrepancy. No but/if/maybe.

Similar to the following statement

"I will pay you only if I have a job. "

Very clear, if I don't have a job, then I won't pay you. Very easy to understand statement.

[monte1] 17/8/2019 22:37

Well, perhaps you could be kind enough to direct me to the part in either agreement that states that the debt will be deemed satisfied in the event of 50% of future royalty payments not totalling $2.5m., as that appears to be the thrust of your rather unlikely assumption.

tia

[adnan17] 17/8/2019 22:33

Where do you get that? Is that another assumption (getting boring)? Please can you refer me to the specific line in either the Settlement Agreement or the Corroboration Agreement where it states that.

[monte1] 17/8/2019 22:29

No future royalty payments, no discharge of the debt. (No future royalty payments would not have been contemplated at time of agreement)

[adnan17] 17/8/2019 22:27

Lol.

AND offset against future royalty payments.

Did you miss the AND. Not "OR" but "AND"

So payment will be deferred (i.e. Delayed until a later time) AND OFFSET against future royalty payments.

So once again (getting boring but hey ho), no FUTURE ROYALTY payments, then no payments to Glenmark.

[monte1] 17/8/2019 22:21

“ The full payment shall be deferred and offset against future royalty payments......”;

Deferred
adjective [ before noun ] UK /dɪˈfɜ;ːd/ US
delayed until a later time:
deferred bonuses/compensation/charges

Let me know if have trouble with the term ‘deferred̵7;.

[adnan17] 17/8/2019 22:20

Within point 7 of the Settlement Agreement it very clearly states

"The full payment WILL BE deferred AND offset against FUTURE ROYALTY payments"

Let me know if you have difficulty understanding "WILL BE" and "AND"

[adnan17] 17/8/2019 22:09

If there are no Royalty fees paid to Napo then there is no payment made to Glenmark.

There is no debt. Not sure where you get that from. You are Just making stuff up here. Please read point 7 of the Settlement Agreement. It is very very clear where the payment will come from.

Payment will ONLY be made to Glenmark from Royalty Fees. No Royalty Fees no payments. This way Glenmark are now incentivised to make the drug sales.

If Glenmark don't make the drug sales then they will not receive their legal fees.

[monte1] 17/8/2019 22:02

Obviously not under that medium of payment. The debt is still outstanding though as Napo are then in breach of the settlement agreement.

[adnan17] 17/8/2019 21:57

Point 8 is very important. Just answer this question.

Do you agree, if there are NO royalty fees paid from Glenamark to Napo then there are no payments made to Glenmark? Yes or No.

[sweet karolina2] 17/8/2019 21:56

I wonder how much the bondholders who bought bonds in 2014 could sue BUR for. I am sure there is a litigation finance company who would fund the class action.

[monte1] 17/8/2019 21:55

I have now contacted the police regarding the missing Point 6 as I suspect foul play. They suggested I should call list property and check if it has been handed in.
In any event they won’t treat it is a missing Point case until 24hrs have elapsed.

[monte1] 17/8/2019 21:53

8. And? The arbiters said Napo you have to pay Genmarks costs. There then followed a negotiation / discussion about how this could best be achieved. We will never know the reasons why the agreement was finalised this way but could be a) we (Napo) don’t have the cash or b) we want to keep the pressure on you (Glenmark) to sell product / lass likely that Napo could fall the shots in this. It could have been Napo pay $1 per year for 2.5m years or anything. It does not matter.

7. The value of the product was whatever the total sales were/are.

[williamcooper104] 17/8/2019 21:49

I would be more than happy to be as wealthy as some of my bankrupt friends

[adnan17] 17/8/2019 21:46

Monte -

Likewise I am struggling to understand why you cannot grasp the intricacies

Point 8 - the settlement agreement is very clear. Fees will come from Royalty fees. The settlement goes into details where the fees come from. If the fees were to come from anywhere or other sources then Settlement Agreement wouldn't have gone into detail about this issue.

Point 7 - I think we are saying the same thing. Both companies under the Settlement Agreement would be allowed to sell a drug worth $700m. Glenmark would get first shot. Then Napo would have a shot. Initially you said this point is not material. And I disagreed it is very material. Both companies would get a shot in selling the drug. After all street value of the drug is $700m.

[sparusty] 17/8/2019 21:45

400 million minus 15 million is a fair way away from being insolvent.
I wish I was that insolvent.

[monte1] 17/8/2019 21:40

I will have a look down the back of the sofa for any stray Point 6’s.