Burford Capital Share Discussion Threads

[scubadiverr] 11/11/2019 18:47

The cases have been news since the initial drop. I did think that the cases would have been dropped by now following the numerous analyses from both Burford and third parties. Personally, I would have thought any claims now brought should be against MW, as believe from the numerous RNSs and conferences that the allegations to be unfounded.

[rar100] 11/11/2019 18:21

5chipper

Ah ok, it was new news to me

[5chipper] 11/11/2019 15:45

It was far from new news!

CB even mentioned it on one of the investor calls or meets, I seem to remember

[rar100] 11/11/2019 15:32

The share price was rising slowly but surely (up 18% in one month) until the news of the class action against Burford by previous shareholders.

As someone said, it's a pity they were not suing MW.

[williamcooper104] 11/11/2019 15:27

It's AIM - but for AIM it's huge, spreads reasonable tight and reasonably liquid (though not always) The asset class is, or rather ought to be, near zero beta but the stock when it re-rated from a NAV/investment trust into a growth story based on expanding PE the beta went up - that said even in its early days it was still volatileThe asset correlation is low but the assets of course still have risk and rather than being a granular collection - like Mano - we have one massive Argentinian elephant on the balance sheet

[george stobbart] 11/11/2019 15:26

Cai I please spread some Fear, uncertainty and doubt here and also some negative fake news?

[pal44] 11/11/2019 15:11

its AIM buddy expect it to be thrashed on any slight whisper and fly on any leaks just have to be lucky to be on the right side of the move GLA..

[dgdg1] 11/11/2019 15:09

Yes it was volatile from long before MW, and I have often wondered why. After all, it shouldn't be at all affected by economic news and there is no way anyone knows how successful it is being in taking on new cases and the success of cases, so the volatility seems strange. Does anyone have any explanations?

[williamcooper104] 11/11/2019 14:30

It's always been a volatile stock

[williamcooper104] 11/11/2019 14:30

Yep - back to being a trading stock - alas I didn't unload at close to £10 In long run probably matters little but can be bit of fun

[ozzmosiz] 11/11/2019 14:03

Saved myself £250 by selling my trading shares Friday and buying them back today.

[lazg] 11/11/2019 13:33

Going back up now. Very volatile.

[pal44] 11/11/2019 09:35

yup faulty fuse and handbrakes jammed on Friday may be this week it will pass the MOT .. GLA

[mad foetus] 11/11/2019 08:58

Looked like £10 was going to be challenged, now we are hoping £9 holds. Funny old business.

[ozzmosiz] 11/11/2019 08:56

Low volume, yet seems to be dragging the price down

[mad foetus] 11/11/2019 08:03

In my experience these sort of applications are normally pretty quick unless they are resisted. I could be wrong but the fact we haven't heard anything makes me wonder if the LSE is resisting. Normally the party with the information wants to keep out of the dispute and so it is a relatively administrative decision. But my experience is probably 15 years old, so things may have changed.

[dgdg1] 10/11/2019 16:14

rar100, I haven't heard anything more about the timing of the case. The case is a claim to obligate the LSE to release the names of the parties behind the trades at the time of MW's report. I don't think the data would prove anything against LSE, the point is just to show who did the seemingly manipulative trades, if there was manipulation it wouldn't be LSE's fault. But I suspect they won't want to release the data without a court order, so as to avoid claims from other parties against them (those whose identities would be revealed). I suppose these cases always take quite a bit of time, no idea how long is realistic to expect it to be. Maybe someone else has an idea.

[rar100] 10/11/2019 12:41

dgdg1,

Yes I agree with your comments in your last post (and previous ones).

Any news on the timing of Bur's own case against MW? Or is that dependent perhaps of the info on manipulation from the LSE which I think could take a very long time to materialize if ever as it would indicate LSE at fault.

[rar100] 10/11/2019 12:26

Can anyone hazard a guess as to how long the class action against Burford will go on for?

I would imagine that some aspects of accounting by Burford could come out as guilding a lilly a bit, but that's not exactly unusual in most company reports, it's whether there was actual wrong doing that matters. A difficult one to prove...

I suppose we see the share price decline again until it's settled...

Keep the news and opinions going people, fingers crossed for LTH's.

[dgdg1] 10/11/2019 11:34

Exactly. I really do feel sorry for those people who lost money because of MW, it's actually shocking. But I would suggest that instead of suing Burford they should consider claiming against MW, perhaps by joining onto Burford's claim against MW. That would be interesting.

[stoxx67] 10/11/2019 11:01

agree..

the whole thing has been argued and won by Burford, they have answered everything thrown at them and have proven it to be a nonsense.

the oily real losers are those that sold potential long term positions into the fall created by the fiction of MW.

i never sold a share, Burford will go on a great deal further than £20 or £30 a share given a couple of years IMHO.

will be nice to see Burford take out MW though, one less piece of garbage infesting the waters will not be a bad thing, with damages to boot.

[dgdg1] 10/11/2019 10:03

No news here, it has long been known since the MW report that law firms were trying to set up class action suits against Burford based on MW (you can't blame them for trying to earn fees, they don't care if the claim fails), and now it has happened. There is absolutely nothing new in the claim, they just repeat the MW allegations as if they are fact, obviously completely ignoring any answers given by Burford, brokers and others. Present shareholders clearly believe the claims to be false so should assume that the court will find the same thing, and dismiss the case, so I can't see why anyone, acting logically, should be more inclined to sell (or not buy) as a result of this claim. There are many such claims aginst companies by shareholders trying to get damages, most of them get nowhere. The whole thing is just a nonsense. The claims were started off at the height of the MW panic when most people believed avery word of MW and no answers had yet come to light. Presumably many then sold their shares and lost substantial sums, so are still aggrieved and are trying to recover their losses. It's understandable but doesn't prove any validity whatsoever of the allegations.

[mad foetus] 09/11/2019 19:13

Not an issue, only covers ADRs which were sold in the US and there are next to none of those.

[bristol97] 09/11/2019 18:52

Well that's going to put a lid on any near time rises IMO.

[felix67] 09/11/2019 18:46

Now what is your point or am I missing something?