Trending Now
Case Developments Commercial

Parties in Burford-Funded Argentina Claim Remain Far Apart on Payout Amount 

August 3, 2023

Parties in Burford-Funded Argentina Claim Remain Far Apart on Payout Amount 

Cases with a prolonged duration and timelines that span nearly a decade are not uncommon for those in the business of litigation finance. However, even in cases where claimants receive a favourable judgement, there is always the issue of determining the size of the award, which further prolongs these lawsuits. A recent article by Bloomberg Law provides an update on the three-day trial in the case of Petersen Energia Inversora, S.A.U. v. Argentine Republic, which ended with the opposing parties still $6.5 billion apart on what they think the proposed payout should be. The case, which dates back to 2015, was brought on behalf of YPF SA shareholders, who argued that the Argentine government failed to offer a required payout after it re-nationalized the oil company in 2012.  As LFJ previously reported, Judge Loretta A. Preska ruled that Argentina was liable for the shareholders’ losses in a summary judgement in March of this year. During last month’s trial in the Southern District of New York, the shareholders argued that the payout could amount to as much as $16 billion, whilst Argentina provided a much lower estimate of $9.5 billion. The significant distance between the two amounts revolved around a number of key issues, including the date that the government took back control of YPF, with the two parties specifying dates that are three weeks apart.  The outcome of the trial has particular significance for Burford Capital who invested $16.6 million in the litigation, and following the March judgement, had stated that the final award could total in excess of $7.5 billion. This figure is notably lower than Argentina’s proposed payout. However, Judge Preska provided no estimate of when she might deliver a ruling on the payout and attorneys for the Argentine government have already made clear that they will appeal the award, regardless of the Judge’s ruling.
Secure Your Funding Below
Secure Your Funding Sidebar

Case Developments

View All
Case Developments Commercial

‘Forensic Independence’ from Funders at Forefront of Pogust Goodheads’ Brazil Claim

By John Freund |

Pogust Goodhead has emphatically denied that it is controlled by litigation funders, insisting it retains full “forensic independence” in the high‑profile claim over the 2015 Mariana dam collapse.

As LFJ recently reported, the class action firm, representing hundreds of thousands of victims in a potential £36 billion lawsuit against mining giant BHP, is under scrutiny following the recent ousting of its co‑founder and chief executive, Tom Goodhead, at the behest of its primary financier, Gramercy Funds Management.

An article in The Law Society Gazette reports that Pogust Goodhead maintains it enjoys “forensic independence” from its principal backer. Opponents—including BHP and its counsel, Slaughter and May—have raised serious concerns about governance, questioning whether Gramercy now exerts undue influence over strategic decisions—an arrangement that could run foul of English and Welsh rules reserving case control for qualified lawyers.

In response, Pogust Goodhead reiterated that it remains “fully independent, with complete control over the strategy and direction of every case” and that its renewed governance structures strengthen its capacity to act in its clients’ best interests. Gramercy, for its part, denied any ownership or management control of the firm.

Looking ahead, this unfolding governance dispute raises critical questions for the future of litigation funding: How will courts view funder-linked control over claimant law firms? Could the outcome limit or reshape access-to-justice models reliant on third-party financing? As this case nears a key ruling, the legal funding industry may be on the cusp of a regulatory watershed.

Case Developments Commercial

BHP Presses Gramercy–Pogust on Control of £36bn Claim

By John Freund |

A high-stakes governance fight is spilling into the UK’s largest group action. BHP has demanded clarity over hedge fund Gramercy Funds Management’s role at Pogust Goodhead, the claimant firm fronting a £36 billion suit tied to Brazil’s 2015 Mariana dam disaster. The miner’s counsel at Slaughter and May points to recent leadership turmoil at the firm and questions whether a non-lawyer financier can exert de facto control over litigation strategy—an issue that cuts to the heart of legal ethics and England & Wales’ restrictions on who can direct claims.

Financial Times reports that Gramercy, which finances Pogust, has just extended $65 million more to the firm after the removal of CEO-cofounder Tom Goodhead. BHP wants answers on independence and management oversight as the case nears a pivotal High Court ruling. For its part, Pogust says it remains independent and committed to its clients, while Gramercy rejects any suggestion it owns or manages the firm. The backdrop is familiar to funders: courts’ increasing scrutiny of who calls the shots when capital underwrites complex, bet-the-company litigation. Prior settlement overtures from BHP and Vale—reported at $1.4 billion—were rebuffed as insufficient relative to the claim’s scale and alleged harm.

Beyond this case, the episode underscores a larger question: how far can financing arrangements go before they collide with the long-standing principle that lawyers—and only lawyers—control litigation? The answer matters well beyond Mariana. If courts or legislators tighten the definition of control, expect deal terms, governance covenants, and disclosure norms in UK funding to evolve quickly. For cross-border mass-harm claims, the line between support and steer is narrowing—and being tested in real time.

Case Developments Commercial

ALF-Member Backs Amazon UK Pricing Class Action

By John Freund |

A new opt-out competition claim aims squarely at Amazon, alleging price-parity tactics inflated costs for more than 45 million UK consumers. The Association of Consumer Support Organisations has filed for certification in the Competition Appeal Tribunal, instructing Stephenson Harwood with counsel from Monckton Chambers. The claim asserts Amazon’s marketplace policies restricted third-party sellers from offering better prices elsewhere—costs that, ACSO says, consumers ultimately bore.

The Global Legal Post notes a third-party litigation funder—confirmed as a member of the Association of Litigation Funders—is bankrolling the action, with identity to be revealed at certification. That disclosure posture aligns with the CAT’s funder-transparency expectations post-PACCAR while preserving competitive sensitivity during the early phase. On the defense side, Amazon labeled the case “without merit,” and emphasized consumer benefits and seller support on its platform. For claimant-side practitioners, the case illustrates how funders continue to underwrite large opt-out competition claims notwithstanding shifting case law on damages-based LFAs; structures are adjusting, not retreating.

If certified, the case will test funder appetite for big-ticket consumer competition matters amid the UK government’s newly announced review of the collective actions regime. It could also influence how funders structure returns (percentage vs. multiple, hybrids) to thread the needle between tribunal oversight and commercial viability. Watch for whether the CAT’s scrutiny of fees and “just and reasonable” outcomes further standardizes funding terms across UK opt-out claims.