Scancell founder says the company is ready to commercialise novel medicines to counteract cancer. Watch the video here.
Mkx007 - ignoring the conjecture around securities fraud, it's an issue of trust. Given c.50% of profits come from management's valuation of unrealised gains, reporting should really be as transparent as possible and the fact that it isn't has spooked people. GAM for e.g. were the biggest holder of Burford bonds and dumped them all after the report came out.
Thanks fulmar - normally I would agree re ambulance chasers but I cannot get my head around this Napo business.
In Burford's reply to MW, they said that the $15.8m shown in the 2013 accounts referred to a resolved case regarding Napo vs. others "that resulted in an entitlement for Burford". Does anyone know who or what cases "others" refers to? Have management mentioned it anywhere? The only other Napo case in 2013 I can find was a settlement after ruling against them vs. Glenmark, so it cannot be that.
As per the 2019 reporting table, however, this $15.8m has disappeared, and is replaced by the £8.8m, which was paid to BUR as a result of the Napo / Jaguar merger and was associated with its $30m debt to BUR relating to the Salix case and not others. It therefore seems that the $15.8m that was resolved relating to others disappeared...
If anyone could shed any light on the situation for me it would be much appreciated. Thanks in advance.
hi fulmar29 - sorry, that's not correct. All the litigation (so far) is aimed at Burford, for potentially committing securities fraud by raising money off the back of artificially inflating returns, particularly in the Napo case.
For e.g.
https://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2019/08/14/1901763/0/en/ONGOING-INVESTIGATION-REMINDER-The-Schall-Law-Firm-Announces-it-is-Investigating-Claims-Against-Burford-Capital-Limited-and-Encourages-Investors-with-Losses-in-Excess-of-100-000-to.html
https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20190807005768/en/EQUITY-ALERT-Rosen-Law-Firm-Announces-Investigation
Don't know if this was picked up elsewhere, but there was a China / Congolese diplomatic celebration on Saturday for 55 years of cooperation and Ma Fulin (the Chinese ambassador) had this to say (translated from French):
On the SEZ: (after a bit of waffle) "Maybe people do not see the results of this project yet, but that does not mean things are not moving forward. The project is progressing in good conditions and the two parties are still holding consultations, consultations and friendly discussions for the construction of this Pointe-Noire special economic zone."
Not quite confirmed shovels in the ground in January 2019, but I'll take it.
And more importantly, on the debt restructuring: "With regard to China, which is also one of the creditors of the Congo, we want to deal with this problem with the greatest sincerity and the greatest will to the extent of our possibilities. According to information in my possession, the negotiations between the Congolese authorities and Eximbank of China are going very well. At the moment, these negotiations are almost complete. We are only waiting for the signing of the final convention."
And then a bit more waffle on how China is still committed to Congo: "I would like to say that the celebration of these 55 years is not limited to this day, it will last all year, since there is political exchange, many projects, and China is working with the Congolese government in the implementation of eight major initiatives from the last Beijing Forum on China-Africa Cooperation. As Sino-Congolese cooperation has arrived at the level of the global strategic partnership, these relations play a pioneering role in relations between China and Africa as a whole."
Confirmation from the Chinese ambassador that the debt negotiations are essentially complete. Works for me! (touch wood)
http://www.vox.cg/le-fmi-revient-a-brazzaville/
Fingers crossed for the umpteenth time...
Sure - page 8 of below.
http://www.lepatriote-congobrazza.com/pdf_month/Journal_498_20181001.pdf
(Apols, got day wrong - came out on Monday, I saw it on Wed)
Cheers
This could well be a positive for us.
Any resolution to the talks now has to be led by China, Glencore and Trafigura (rather than just the government vs. IMF), so one imagines it would almost certainly involve a route to developing Zanaga in some capacity...
"Unsustainable debt and a great weakness in governance", these are the two main observations made by the missions of the Monetary Fund which have succeeded each other in Brazzaville. Christine Lagarde, Executive Director of the IMF, has repeatedly reminded the institution of her requirements to aid seekers: "we lend money from the international community [...] So, we are indebted for this transparency and we demand it from our partners". The IMF asks the Congolese government to be open and clear in the management of its wealth: oil, for revenue and major works, for its expenses.
In addition, the Congo, which is languishing under the weight of a heavy debt, must also face its equally demanding creditors. In the head, China, whose debt peaks at 1,776 billion CFA francs and traders including Glencore, Trafigura, UBA who have done business with the National Society of Petroleum of Congo (SNPC). Traders and China alone hold more than 60 percent of the country's total external debt.
For the rest of the process, all eyes are on China, in its dual status as Congo's main creditor and strategic partner.
The key role of China
The IMF conditions its aid to Congo, on the restructuring of the external debt estimated at more than 120% of GDP. The question for Brazzaville is to have direct contacts with both the IMF, Glencore, Trafigura and China. It is understood that the board of directors of this institution will give the green light to an aid plan only when the Congo and its various creditors have found a compromise. In this vicious circle, China's role is considered dominant. According to personalities familiar with the matter, the People's Republic of China, which is a well-heard voice on the IMF's board of directors, has consistently expressed its commitment to support the Congo. But the good intentions of this strategic partner of Congo face the obligations of the IMF. This institution requires a written request from the sitting administrator of China. This would undoubtedly have the value of a deposit. This is what the Chinese government is not prepared to accept, having already done so first through its Deputy Minister of Commerce and China Exim Bank, specialized in foreign trade. However, China does not hide its complete willingness to work with the IMF's board of directors, as well as with other institutions, to bring the Congo file to a successful conclusion.
At the same time, the country needs to recover its debts from the Congo, after heavy investment in this country, especially in the realization of road, port, airport, sports, education... Accounts receivables in kind, specifically in oil shipments, in accordance with agreements between the two parties. This could help reduce Congo's debt by at least 30% in the next three years; commitment that the Congo can no longer hold, probably because of the pressure exerted by traders who monopolize almost all Congolese crude.
Hi extrader,
This seems to be an even more extreme case of join the dots than usual, when you consider this article from Wednesday from one of the French Brazzaville papers:
CONGO-IMF Talks Stalled
A leading role for China is more and more sought after
Discussions between the government of Congo and the International Monetary Fund are at a standstill. The country's public debt (CFAF 5,784 billion), considered unsustainable, explains the distrust of its creditors, who are joined by international financial institutions. Hence the stalemate of the process that began two years ago. The new impulse given by President Denis Sassou-N'Guesso, during his recent visit to China was not enough to move the lines. The inflexible requirements of the IMF combined with the activism of creditors, who are less and less cooperative, leave a climate of uncertainty and anxiety.
The heavy silence hanging over the discussions between the IMF and the Congo opens the door to all interpretations. In this opinion, everyone has a comment. This subject, the subject of several controversies, feeds political debates that often clash. One thing is certain: the current situation of the country challenges consciences within all social classes. No one would want to stay out of this debate of a great national cause. The most pessimistic, having a fatalistic reading of the situation, believe that the Congo is on the verge of bankruptcy. They argue that signing a program aid and reform with the IMF, is getting further and further away, today more than yesterday. This naturally gives chills, creates uncertainty and leads to despair.
Faced with this current, there are those who believe that the situation is not insurmountable. However, they believe that the decision-makers, headed by the Head of State, should take bolder options, by changing course, initiating deep-seated internal reforms and sending powerful messages to the international financial community, as well as to the creditors of the country, by restructuring the heavy debt of the Congo. Held at the throat, on the one hand by China, on the other hand, by oil traders, the country needs to re-oxygenate its economy and its finances. This is the approach taken by some oil companies in the sub-region that have managed to get by, by putting pressure on traders. Such is the case of Chad who negotiated step by step with Glencore and found a compromise with the trader. This has allowed this country to loosen the grip and revitalize its economy.
Hi Oliver,
Thanks for the advice and certainly no offence taken. Unfortunately it speaks volumes to your understanding of investing, rather than actually saying anything about me.
In return, I would like to give you some advice that might help you in future. In the words of Ben Graham, “the individual investor should act consistently as an investor and not as a speculator.” Now – that doesn’t mean “joining the dots” and shouting “BOOM” at every piece of vaguely positive information no matter how credible (speculating), but gathering all the facts possible and making a cold-eyed judgement about the company (investing). I did this, came to a positive conclusion (as Sooty points out), and invested heavily (I would hazard at a far greater level than you).
One of those pieces of information I based my decision on was received second-hand – we have now received a more recent piece of first-hand information that trumps the info I had before and so moves my opinion (for that piece of the jigsaw) in a more positive direction. I am not emotionally attached (nor should any investor be) to my opinions or research, if someone shows me evidence that reflects a counter-view to mine then I am happy to accept it, rather than just shout them out of town as people like to do on here.
In this specific instance, people simply saying “all their RNS’ mention Glencore so they must be involved day-to-day” did not meet the evidence threshold for that (can guess at that one myself thanks – don’t have to “forensically” read an RNS), the company saying for the first time that they have had an intensive workshop with Glencore (which makes me think my info wasn’t wrong, but now just out-of-date) obviously did.
All my previous “fact based” opinions still hold, although I am eager for information to come to light that allows me to tick them off as well.
I can’t believe I’m actually having to explain this to someone that thinks of themselves as an investor, but hopefully that clears it up for you. Cheers.
Oh my goodness let’s please not get into this again. That is a complete misrepresentation of my position of their involvement, which was based on second hand knowledge (rather than people just inferring from an RNS).
Either way, we have concrete information they are now involved on the day-to-day level, we can have different opinions as to the level of their prior involvement, ultimately it doesn’t matter - it’s good news and let’s move on
I don’t think I’ve ever actually been negative Shaun - just factual! And now thanks to Sidney I have a fact that allows me to think more positively about the Glencore situation than my previous information allowed for.
Still a long way to go before Glasenberg decides to develop his first multi-billion greenfield site in about five years though. Hopefully the Chinese doing all the associated infrastructure for him will be a good first step...
Looks like my apology re Glencore involvement may be coming very soon!
The fact AT specifically referenced the project team having an intensive workshop with Glencore does point to what I was saying before re no Glencore involvement on project team and no real involvement with the project prior to this.
Still, who cares either way given we have confirmation they are fully involved now.
Additionally, looks like the IMF are currently in the country to work through the budget. Hopefully we see some real progress coming out of this...
http://www.adiac-congo.com/content/finances-publiques-une-mission-du-fmi-brazzaville-pour-faciliter-le-cadrage-budgetaire-89687
scottology - agreed and thank you a bit of well-thought out analysis, rather than just the boom or wow we get from other quarters.
This is also what I was referring to with "hopefully looking good for some progress before year end". Fingers crossed.
And there he goes again. Someone raises a reasonable point and so the attacks begin. Absolutely shameless.
Any of my posts that have been removed are because you reported them, as you like this BB to be a weird little echo chamber. I can't comment to that to be honest. What I do know is given this mine has been essentially untouched by Glencore for eight years, it is not a specific and inside track to say Glencore aren't especially interested in it.
In answer to your question, I will pose another. Why do you think all this test work is taking so long if Glencore are fully involved? Seems strange that a project with the full focus of one of the world's largest miners would take so long to develop these costings / route assessments if that was the case. Weird...
As GTA said, when Glencore mention this in their own RNS then I will gracefully apologise and admit that I was mistaken (something you can learn from). Until then, my points still stand and I am not getting into another back and forth with you on whether Glencore are involved so you can distract from being called out again.
Cheers
One more point. If anyone really is stupid enough to invest on the basis of these boards then it isn't the people trying to be rational and fact based that are damaging this share price.
It is the people that are continually ramping this with promises of port funding, investor presentations, NPV calculation RNS' etc. People then buy into that and sell out when no explosive news comes out of an RNS, even though the content is perfectly acceptable. Example today - 6% down on reasonable news
Maybe something to think about when you are thinking about who is trying to manipulate the share price...
NewKOTB - it is not that we can't see what's in front of us, we quite clearly can (as gta has patiently explained on more than one occasion). What we cannot see however, is much or any progress on the most important issues and continually unnecessary ramping over and over.
This RNS has once again kicked the can down the road: further defining of the logistics routes, further EPP feasibility studies, further costings, further commercial acceptability of cold pellet tests etc etc.
We have been led to believe by many posters on here that this was all done and would be outlined in an Investor Presentation happening by the end of September. Clearly not.
After FOCAC, I (and others) spent several days trying to illustrate that the port was not signed off, financing was not secured and construction was not going to start in January 2019, only to be met by a chorus of "deramping / shorting" cries. Guess what, ZIOC has just confirmed the port has not been signed off, financing is not secured and construction therefore will not start in three months.
To then come on here and see WOW "They mentioned Glencore" BOOM "They are engaged in discussions on funding the port" is such insanity that I almost can't actually believe my eyes.
In conclusion, not a great RNS, not the news we were hoping for, but hopefully looking good for some progress before year end. Why is that so hard to accept!?