Burford Capital Share Discussion Threads

[gettingrichslow] 19/8/2019 08:38

Molatov, it will be all parties acting in concert, whether that’s online or offline. The lawyers will already be looking at all the activities and actions taken and making those links.

[hawkind] 19/8/2019 08:37

Winsome, they will not be able to respond to that, you are talking too much truth and comon sense for those muppets.They simply do not want to hear the other side of the debate as it simply does not sit with their agenda which is to drive the price down.Would you spend as much time on here as SK if you had no financial incentive to do so? Look clearly between the lines and then it becomes obvious. I really dislike people like SK, absolute scum is the only way to describe them.But please why are people not filtering these people, when you respond you then put yourselves in a position where you become just as suspect. Do what BUR are now doing. IGNORE the noise.

[molatovkid] 19/8/2019 08:31

I dearly hope online trolls are also on the Burford hit list.

Unfortunately, I suspect they are not.

[winsome] 19/8/2019 08:28

sk, one thing you, MW and share price lack in the credibility dept is that you launch this wide ranging innuendo and speculation which is largely what it is because you fail to contact BUR in person to ask for their side of the story.

I'm sure you have a range of excuses for not contacting BUR but they won't wash. Any respectable 'journalist' asks the other side for comment. BUR have a history of very good communication. None of you bothered to ask questions on the public concall.

So others are right to think your motive is not to get answers but purely to drive the price down, which implies, given the amount of time you spend on here, is that you are trying to cover your short position, which was probably placed well after MW bailed.

So how about actually contacting BUR. Its a very simple thing to do and no excuse not to. Because 'any' response good or bad is helpful, wouldn't you agree?

[borg45] 19/8/2019 08:27

Lol going nowhere pal

[1corrado] 19/8/2019 08:25

recovery..................they were 870 and now 786 i would not call that a recovery they are all over the place.......................is a trading paradise.Looking to buy at 725 or a bit higher all depend of the intraday.

[dgdg1] 19/8/2019 08:19

Not sure what you mean, clause 5 is about royalties, that is a different matter which wasn't amended, I am talking about the price Napo could charge for the product, that's in the clause I quoted. Also not sure why you feel the need to repeat your statement that no royalties have been received and about drawing conclusions - I am commenting on a specific point, why do you feel the need to make general comments?

[1oughton] 19/8/2019 08:14

Terdofsteel how did qpp go for u?Lol

[1corrado] 19/8/2019 08:12

waiting for 725 to make my move..................

[ozzmosiz] 19/8/2019 08:05

Nerd, yep. Anyone would think the guy was drunk.

[nerdofsteel] 19/8/2019 08:05

is Tom still banging on about Napo like a stuck record lol

[sweet karolina2] 19/8/2019 07:53

dgdg,

Nope, price was iaw Clause 5 of original agreement. Not strictly relevant as was not known at the time but Napo has received no royalties at all.

BUR has ducked the question so far.



We all need to draw our own conclusions accordingly.

[edmondj] 19/8/2019 06:59

Once going down the fair value accounting route however, Burford should have ensured bulletproof independent judgment to ascribe those values - than let Muddy Waters call all the governance shots, they eventually cowed to.

[dgdg1] 19/8/2019 02:27

As for MW claims that Burford doesn't need to use fair value accounting and opt to do so for its own nefarious purposes, here is an interesting comment in the Telegraph from a competitor of Burford (Litigation Capital Management’s vice chairman Nick Rowles-Davies): "Rowles-Davies doesn’t suspect wrongdoing at Burford but he’s irritated by the blowback felt across the rest of the sector as firms scramble to distance themselves from the accusations. LCM doesn’t use fair value accounting methods because it’s not a requirement under Australian law, where the company is predominantly based.

“In Burford’s defence they don’t have any choice but to apply [fair value accounting] standards. People have forgotten that. It’s not that fair value accounting itself is wrong,” argues Rowles-Davies.

[dgdg1] 19/8/2019 02:02

It looks like there was an improvement for Napo in the settlement about the price they could charge Glenmark for CPL (note CPL is the raw material that Napo agreed to provide Glemark from which Glenmark was meant to produce the crofelemer drug). See the original agreement 4.3 (e) it says "Napo will provide Glenmark the CPL from which crofelemer is extracted. To ensure the quality of the Licensed Product(s), Napo will be Glenmark’s sole supplier of CPL from which crofelemer is extracted during the term of this Agreement. Napo will supply CPL at a price to Glenmark which is equal to Napo’s documented costs for acquisition, processing, packaging, shipment, and allocated overhead plus twenty-five percent (25%). In the event that Glenmark identifies an alternative source for CPL, Napo will retain its right to be the exclusive supplier if Napo can provide CPL at a price to Glenmark that is 125% or less of the price charged by such alternative supplier. Napo shall have the right to approve such alternative supplier based upon sustainable harvest and conservation practices and quality specifications, such approval not to be unreasonably withheld, conditioned or delayed by Napo. However, in the event that a competitive Crofelemer API product enters the market at a price that is lower than the price at which Glenmark is selling its Licensed Product, and the price of the CPL for the competitive product is less than the price at which Napo is selling CPL to Glenmark, then, to secure Napo’s right to remain as Glenmark’s sole supplier of CPL, Napo agrees to provide CPL to Glenmark at 105% or less of the documented price charged by the alternate supplier of CPL." Under the terms of the settlement in section 3b however it says "Article 4.3(e) of the Collaboration Agreement is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following: (e) Napo will supply CPL at a price to Glenmark which is equal to Napo’s documented costs for acquisition, processing, packaging, shipment, and allocated overhead plus twenty-five percent (25%) and Glenmark will provide Napo with a rolling 12-month forecast of its volume requirements for CPL. However, Glenmark shall have the unequivocal right to use an alternate source of supply for CPL or to use sources of supply for CPL in addition to Napo provided that (i) Glenmark pays Napo a twenty-five percent (25%) markup above Glenmark’s costs for acquisition, processing, packaging, shipment, and allocated overhead, if any, to obtain CPL from such alternate or additional supplier, and (ii) Glenmark informs Napo of the identity of the alternate or additional supplier as well as the quantities and price of CPL purchased from the alternate or additional supplier". So it looks like Napo gained in that it got deleted the right which Glenmark previously had to end exclusivity if a competing seller of crofelemer comes to the market (cheaper than Glenmark are selling crofelemer) and Napo refused to supply the CPL at less than 105% of the competitor's supplier of CPL

[williamcooper104] 18/8/2019 23:05

True - doh - mustn't have read it correctly Position ought to have been around £30m

[adnan17] 18/8/2019 23:02

Response to post 11494 by SK

SK, Have you got any evidence to back any of the above conversations you quoted? Please can you submit your references. Bizarre I thought you said your analysis was backed by very thorough in-depth research. It appears that all your research is just hot air and very much unsubstantiated.

Hopefully when there is an investigation by the FRC/SEC, they can also go through some of the outrageous claims and fear mongering on this site.

[hawkind] 18/8/2019 22:49

The Times has no credibility anymore. The daily sport is more believable.

[littlepuppi7] 18/8/2019 22:32

BTW guy, check out SRB Serabi gold next week.. With gold rerating, this is a play you do not want to miss..

[littlepuppi7] 18/8/2019 22:31

300m? That would be 10 - 15% of the company.. Thats not right...

[williamcooper104] 18/8/2019 22:29

Seems that MW had a £300m positionThe peak to trough would suggest that the max they could make would be c£250m Yet they only made c£12m Wouldn't expect them to make anything close to the max possible given the risk But would have thought better than 12 Not the best trader