Burford Capital BUR
Burford's rebuttal on Napo is a dodge: a 2013 Glenmark arbitration MW surfaces proves Napo was a failed investment BUR disguised as a winner.
Thesis
Muddy Waters rebuts Burford Capital's August 2019 response to its initial short report claim that BUR manipulated ROIC and IRR on a $7.4 million Napo Pharmaceuticals investment. BUR defended itself by invoking a litigation matter separate from the Salix case that supposedly created an entitlement in 2013. MW's follow-up surfaces a second, previously undisclosed arbitration — Glenmark Pharmaceuticals v. Napo — in which Napo lost all damages claims in September 2013 and was ordered to pay Glenmark's fees, forcing Napo to agree to $2.5M in reimbursements. Combined with Napo's $391,000 of LTM revenue and negative $58.9 million book value, MW argues Napo could not have looked like a solid credit to BUR. Carson Block concludes BUR 'stops just short of actually lying' and is unworthy of an AIM listing, let alone a U.S. one.
SCQA
Burford Capital is a litigation-finance firm whose reported returns depend on how it marks individual case investments; MW had previously flagged BUR's ROIC and IRR on a $7.4M Napo Pharmaceuticals position as egregiously manipulated.
BUR publicly answered that MW's Napo claim was 'simply false,' citing a separate litigation that allegedly created an entitlement in 2013; MW surfaces a Glenmark v. Napo arbitration showing Napo actually lost and owed fees.
Investors should reject BUR's rebuttal as outrageously misleading, recognize the Napo investment as a loss BUR deceptively categorized as a win, and treat BUR as unfit for an AIM listing, let alone a U.S. listing.
No explicit price target is provided; MW argues BUR's disclosure integrity is fatally undermined, implying further equity downside as the firm's investing prowess and accounting claims unravel.
The three reasons
- 1
Glenmark arbitration was a disaster for Napo well before end of 2013
- 2
Napo had $391k LTM revenue and -$58.9M book value — no credible entitlement existed
- 3
BUR booked illusory returns on Napo; Invesco/Barnett-led bailout masked the loss
Primary demands
- Reject Burford's rebuttal on the Napo investment as misleading
- Recognize that the $7.4M Napo investment was a loss, not a win
- Treat BUR as unfit for an AIM listing, let alone a U.S. listing
KPIs cited
Pattern membership
Where this document fits across the library's 12 rhetorical / structural patterns.
Notable slides (3)
Notes
Short 3-page MW rebuttal memo (pages 2-4) titled 'Burford: Was MW Wrong About Napo?' opening with the rhetorical 'No. Don't be silly.' Pages 5-12 are a verbatim court-filing exhibit (Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Napo Pharmaceuticals — Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award, Case 2:14-cv-02592-CCC-JBC) used as evidence. Page 1 is Muddy Waters Capital Terms of Use / disclaimer boilerplate. Classified as research_note rather than letter because it reads as a public short-seller rebuttal with footnoted sources, not addressed to a specific recipient. Memorable rhetorical punchline: 'Like skilled trial lawyers, BUR stops just short of actually lying.'