Burford Capital Share Discussion Threads

[molatovkid] 27/8/2019 09:01

To quote George Harrison, 'all things must pass'...and this will.

[molatovkid] 27/8/2019 08:58

smithie....puts me to sleep, i know that much

[hawkind] 27/8/2019 08:58

This will be back in 900's very soon, what muppet said sub 600. Idiot

[1corrado] 27/8/2019 08:52

800p coming soon........................

[1corrado] 27/8/2019 08:34

800p coming.......................

[epicsurf] 27/8/2019 08:31

BURFORD CAPITAL FINANCE LLC

Notification of transaction by person discharging managerial responsibilities

Burford Capital Finance LLC (the "Company"), an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of Burford Capital Limited ("Burford"), announces that it has been notified of certain purchases of the Company's bonds by Hugh Steven Wilson, Burford's Deputy Chairman.

On 21 August 2019, Mr Wilson purchased 2,800 6.125% US Dollar denominated bonds due 12 August 2025 issued by the Company (the "Bonds") at a price of US$88.625 per Bond.

The Notification of Dealing Form for the transaction mentioned above is included at the end of this announcement.

For further information, please contact:

[tsmith2] 27/8/2019 08:31

Can we go back to slip now EdmondJ?

[molatovkid] 27/8/2019 08:26

Glad to see investors are seeing through Muddy Waters latest effort.

Once we clear these chancers, then there will be good money to be made from these levels.

[mhassanriaz] 27/8/2019 08:18

Making way for the shorts to close cheap. MW fails once again. BUR are likely to hit back with a strong knockout punch very soon.

[5chipper] 27/8/2019 08:16

Why are they publicly naming shareprophets as their source?

[molatovkid] 27/8/2019 08:13

I think it tells its own story that Muddy are having to go back 6-8 years to dig dirt

[tsmith2] 27/8/2019 08:12

Yes, hopefully, market will see straight through it

[1corrado] 27/8/2019 08:09

and bleu it is........................so far.............

[1corrado] 27/8/2019 08:06

WILL GO bleu at any time now................back to 800p very soon.

[molatovkid] 27/8/2019 08:05

so now its 8 years ago....lol

[daffyjones] 27/8/2019 08:03

In 2011, BUR funded (in addition to Napo v. Salix) an arbitration dispute between Napo and another of Napo’s licensees, Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (We would like to recognize Share Prophets and its reader Drunken Sailor for first identifying this matter.) A review of the publicly-available information of this arbitration shows that BUR’s conduct is even more egregious than the Napo / Salix facts alone show.

In Glenmark, it was clear well before the end of 2013 that the outcome was completely adverse for Napo. This fact calls into serious question the integrity of BUR’s management in making the statement about crystalizing an entitlement in 2013.

In September 2013, the arbitration panel handed Napo a loss on all of its claims for damages, awarded Glenmark injunctive relief against Napo, and ordered Napo to reimburse Glenmark for fees and costs of arbitration. In other words, Napo received no award in the arbitration, and as a result of the action, was actually obligated to pay Glenmark. Napo had been the respondent (defendant) in the arbitration, and thus its claims were actually counterclaims asserted along with its defense.

On August 4, 2011, Glenmark filed for the arbitration, petitioning for declarations of its rights under the collaboration agreement between it and Napo. Glenmark appears not to have sought monetary damages. Napo responded with counterclaims for breach of contract and breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing. Napo’s counterclaims were so thin that they ultimately resulted in the award of arbitration fees and costs to Glenmark. Before the arbitration panel determined the actual amount of fees to be reimbursed, Napo agreed to repay Glenmark’s fees and costs in the amount of $2.5 million. (The amount was to be repaid from future royalty payments to Napo.)

In light of the facts, we consider BUR’s response to our Napo discussion outrageously misleading. Well before the end of 2013, the Glenmark arbitration was a disaster for Napo. It seems likely that BUR’s supposed “entitlement” was in the form of a debt Napo owed BUR, which would have been of questionable value at best to Burford. While we do not know Napo’s financial condition as of the end of 2013, just three years later, it had only generated $391,000 in LTM revenue and had negative book value of -$58.9 million. It would strain credulity to claim that at the end of 2013, Napo had looked like a solid credit to BUR.

The denouement of this “investment221; is unchanged from our initial report. BUR Super Shareholder Invesco / Mark Barnett led a bailout of the Napo investment(s) by putting $3 million toward the acquisition of (Lisa Conte’s) Napo by (Lisa Conte’s) Jaguar Animal Health. As we showed in our initial report, BUR booked illusory returns on Napo that largely evaporated when Jaguar’s stock imploded beginning the day after the acquisition.

Like skilled trial lawyers, BUR stops just short of actually lying. But that is really form over substance, or as we see it, a distinction without a difference. In our view, BUR always intended to deceive investors about its Napo returns and its overall investing prowess. On the back of the 2011 vintage, Napo raised four retail bond issues and more equity. When caught, the response was predictable: More deception, evasion, and perhaps even a prayer that this would go away quickly. BUR is not worthy of an AIM listing, let alone a U.S. one.

[1corrado] 27/8/2019 08:02

more accusation they will need to respond via an RNS.

[1corrado] 27/8/2019 07:59

mmm could be tricky to day...........................but who knows...................

[williamcooper104] 27/8/2019 07:58

If our shadow directors lied about the case (big if) then it's most certainly relevant and will seriously knock confidence - and would likely require a new CEO

[tsmith2] 27/8/2019 07:57

yes, desperation

[ozzmosiz] 27/8/2019 07:52

See the bears are trying their best here.
Ready to pick some up if they do fall and if not, meh!

[williamcooper104] 27/8/2019 07:46

I think Bur have to respond Not sure how low but cannot see how this won't knock share price Well done to SK - Bur may (and hopefully are ) in the clear on this - the MW article isn't a smoking gun - but it's still a very legitimate question to push

[nobilis] 27/8/2019 07:32

Can see burford falling sub 600 on this news