A cornerstone of the Muddy Waters attack on Burford (BUR) is that it booked 2013 profits on a case its client Napo lost and, as we showed here lost before the accounts were finalised. Burford’s defence is that this refers to a different Napo case but it failed to say which one. Well, reader Drunken Sailor has – I think found it. Sadly this second case fails to substantiate the Burford rebuttal at all, it makes it look even weaker. Over to Drunken who posts…
Filed under: