missmolly
30 Nov 2017
Nearly 10% rise in SP today ' 4.45 pm Some folk know something, volume up from normal.Anyone have any news?
alekhine
22 Nov 2017
price They fixed it now. Fun while it lasted ....
alekhine
22 Nov 2017
Currently iii shows a share price of around £1,141 (ie confusing pounds and pence). This is distorting the value of my total portfolio a lot, suddenly I'm a multimillionaire.
late developer
22 Nov 2017
new recommendation I see a US investment bank (Jeffries?) has issued a view on Burford with a target price of £30
late developer
18 Oct 2017
holdings Invesco still selling. But then they still hold almost a quarter!
late developer
17 Oct 2017
even better news Old Mutual lifting its shareholding from something under 5% to 6% +
missmolly
03 Oct 2017
Good news for BUR - getting bigger.... Very good news today on their expansion...
missmolly
03 Oct 2017
Re: Momentum stocks This Co. is supposed to be a new 'asset class' - a new way of doing things...And now classed as just a momentum stockThe market seems to be resembling ladies fashion, 'oh no BUR is so 6 months ago'Is big oil the market's darling now?I'd like to see some good news from this company too...My second rant done....
peddlar
28 Sep 2017
Market sentiment for momentum stocks Sounds like this is included in the selloff of momentum shares.this is slowly ebbing down.Though i am excited by their prospects.Have now sold but i will be back...
peddlar
27 Sep 2017
Re: Any comment re: Macquarie forecast o... Sorry ,but i can't find any comment by man apart a price target which looks good at £13.00though the price is a little rocky,though i guess there is no real news out so thesis moving with general market.But i do have faith in these prospects.
missmolly
13 Sep 2017
Re: Any comment re: Macquarie forecast of 23... Well Molly,Since no-one else has any views I would point out to you or me that just a couple of minutes ago the SP was 24p away from their new target so not so bad.Long time now it seems that there was any news, save for the new appointment which looked pretty good to me.I hope you do well with this company Molly, so do I 
missmolly
23 Aug 2017
Any comment re: Macquarie forecast of 23 Aug? it didn't read as good newsAny comments welcomeMissmolly
peddlar
22 Aug 2017
woodford holdings I note Woodford capital has built up a 7th biggest holding in his fund.Though lately he has been having a bad time Privident financal 50 percent down today,Purple bricks rocky with snorters and sunday times,allied minds tanking tobacco shares sliding.hope he has a winner to compensate...
late developer
18 Aug 2017
invesco sale I see Invesco reduced their holding from about 25 to 24 % in a late deal yesterday. I will be interested to see whether they continue to sell.
missmolly
16 Aug 2017
Article by BurfordLitigation finance disclosure: Litigation finance disclosure: Transparency or tactics?Christopher P. Bogart | August 14, 2017As even a cursory perusal of the legal press will confirm, litigation finance is growing. Research on litigation finance shows that its use by law firms grew four-fold between 2013 and 2016; three-quarters of GCs surveyed say it will continue to grow in the next five years.Although the majority accept litigation finance, it has a few critics, notably the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which remains a vocal opponent (despite the apparent contradiction of a business lobbying group decrying a market-based solution to a demand-driven need). Among the key concerns that the Chamber raises is the question of transparency and whether the fact of financing and the identity and terms of the financier should be disclosed in litigation.“Transparency” sounds like a righteous goal, and it is almost a cliché aspiration in our business culture. But it is worth defining the purpose of disclosure in litigation and the standard for requiring it. In doing so, it becomes clear that transparency is already provided for under various court rules. Litigation finance does not merit a special set of rules, nor should it be held to a different standard.Disclosure requirements for legal finance area is a topic that merits extended consideration not only because a vocal minority have advocated that special new rules are required for legal finance, but also because these attempts have generated quite a few headlines in the legal press. One could get the impression from those headlines that special disclosure requirements for legal finance are advancing, so a review of the facts is in order.In litigation, the standard for disclosure is quite simple: It is fair to ask what disclosure will add that is relevant to the matter at hand. How is it relevant to know in a commercial litigation matter that there is an external provider of finance or who that provider of finance is? How is it relevant what the terms of the financing arrangement are?In almost any litigation matter, these matters are rightly deemed entirely irrelevant to the elements of the claim. Courts have not found disclosure of litigation finance to be relevant or necessary. They do not inquire as to these factors, nor should they feel the need to—just as they do not inquire into all the various business relationships that litigants have, and the pressures that they might be experiencing due to those arrangements. If these business and financial relationships are deemed irrelevant to the ultimate disposition of claims when they are called something other than “legal finance”, urging a new and special standard of disclosure based on the semantics of a category descriptor seems patently unfair. The courts have not felt such a special standard necessary.In the US, the standard by which financial conflicts of interests must be disclosed is settled and clearly defined. The Rules of the Supreme Court, the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure all require the identification of a party’s parent corporations and any public shareholder owning more than 10% of the party’s stock.[1] Providers of financing to a party or a case—whether specialist financiers or banks —are not required to be disclosed.[2]Disclosure is a much-debated topic in international arbitration, but it pertains to arbitrators, not providers of finance. The disclosure of potential conflict of interests is indeed one of the arbitrator’s fundamental duties, and all of the major arbitral institutions’ rules require arbitrators to disclose relationships with interested parties. The International Bar Association (IBA) has, however, recommended expanding required disclosure to encompass any non-party’s financial interest in an arbitration matter, including not only specialist finance but other forms of funding, broadly defined.[3] The inclination toward increased disclosure exemplifie
