Member Info for HeinzMeier

This board is an absolute joke. The company commits to the QCA Corporate Governance Code. According to the QCA Code, only non-execs can be independent. Indeed, even the company itself (in the annual report) says that Alan Seller is not considered independent because of his executive role.

Yet, conveniently for the purpose of the proposed transaction, 4 executive directors are deemed "independent". Not just that, they also make up the majority among the "independent" group. One of them added to the board halfway through the offer period, presumably to secure a majority as the 3 NEDs didn't want to put their necks on the line through blatant violation of their fiduciary duties. A different consideration for the executive directors who have jobs on the line. He who pays the piper calls the tune.

I think despite the ongoing coordination among minority shareholders it is still important to send letters individually to Panel and FCA, as I and many others have done. More difficult to ignore if there is a flood of letters from minority shareholders.

Important to highlight the coercive aspect of the offer, i.e. "either you accept our partial tender at a price that even the board's adviser does not deem fair and reasonable, or risk being stuck with potentially worthless, private securities that do not carry any voting rights, covenants, etc"

He did provide an irrevocable. Shares are in the name of his company (Tipacs), not his personal name

Regarding the large realisation with 40% IRR. You have to ask yourself, what are the effects of that realisation on fair value of the portfolio.

In order to do that, you have to think about how that asset was reflected in fair value prior to the realisation. Prior to the realisation, the asset would have been reflected with an assumed longer duration, higher absolute payout, but with a certain haircut for litigation risk (as the matter had not been resolved at that point).

So now the matter resolved in the quarter, which removes the haircut and shortens the case duration. Both of these would have been a positive effect on fair value under “Milestones and Other Model Impacts”.

At the same time, Burford was entitled to a significantly lower absolute dollar amount from that matter than in the previously modelled scenario. This would have been a negative effect on fair value under “Milestones and Other Model Impacts”.

So even though it’s not specifically stated in the slide deck, it’s not unexpected to see these effects largely cancel out.

I had registered to attend but it looks like Anexo/Nick have been removed from the list of speakers.