Trending Now

All Articles

3449 Articles

Legalist CEO Highlights Benefits of Investing in Litigation Finance

At a time of global political and economic instability, building a resilient investment portfolio can become increasingly challenging, as those assets that are correlated to economic stability are faced with continuous challenges. However, as the CEO of one hedge fund points out, this is also a prime opportunity to pursue alternative asset classes that can offer more reliable returns, including investing in litigation finance opportunities.  In an interview with GoBanking Rates, Eva Shang co-founder and CEO of Legalist, speaks about the company’s approach to alternative assets and why litigation finance is proving to be one of the best options for alternative investments. Discussing Legalist's initial proposition and mission, Shang highlighted that their original business model had involved using proprietary technology to search “for court cases that were going to win, and then we sold that information back to lawyers.” However, this was limited by the fact that law firms were often more concerned with increasing billable hours than simply winning every case. Turning to the benefits of investing in alternative assets like litigation finance, Shang emphasizes that if you can diversify your portfolio with investments “that are a little bit more resistant to market conditions, then you can mitigate some of the volatility that you would normally see.” Shang sees these benefits reflected in uncorrelated assets like bankruptcy, government contracts and litigation finance, noting that for the latter, “litigation cases are going to win or lose based on its merits, not based on whether the economy is doing well.”  However, Shang does highlight that these kinds of alternative assets are much harder for retail investors to engage with compared to institutional investors because “most really good alternative credit asset classes are capacity-constrained.” As Shang succinctly concludes: “There are only so many bankruptcies every year, there are only so many litigation cases.”

New Zealand’s Prime Minister Expresses Support for a Formal Class Action Regime

Class actions have been proven time and time again to be an immensely valuable tool for consumers and communities to seek justice against large corporations and institutions, with litigation funders often playing a crucial role in supporting these claims. However, there are still many jurisdictions, such as New Zealand, where there is no formal class action regime in place, thereby creating barriers for the efficient facilitation of these class actions. An article in the NZ Herald highlights recent comments from Chris Hipkins, the Prime Minister and leader of the Labour Party, who has expressed his desire to put in place a formal class actions regime, if his government maintains power after next month’s general election.  As LFJ reported last year, New Zealand’s Law Commission published a report containing its proposals for structural reform of the country’s legal system, which include the introduction of a Class Actions Act. Amokura Kawharu, president of the Law Commission, highlighted various issues including the prohibitively high cost of litigation and stated that “class actions and litigation funding are not a silver bullet for those issues, but we think they can both make important contributions.” Putting forward his party’s perspective on the issue, Hipkins seemed to agree with the commission’s perspective and argued that “those who would benefit from a regime the most, such as consumers and those on lower incomes, are often shut out of the legal system because of the cost of taking individual action.” This move is part of a wider Labour Party agenda that aims to reform the legal system, with Hipkins emphasizing that they would seek to work with all those involved in the legal system to design this new regime.

Certum Group Adds Experienced Litigation Funder, Former U.S. Supreme Court Clerk William Marra as Director

Certum Group, which provides bespoke solutions for companies facing the uncertainty of litigation, has appointed William C. Marra as a director responsible for leading the company’s litigation finance strategy. Marra is a seasoned litigation funder and former U.S. Supreme Court clerk who will help Certum continue its mission of growing and redefining the litigation finance landscape. “We are delighted to welcome aboard Will, who shares our mission-driven approach to helping clients mitigate legal risk and vindicate their rights,” said Joel Fineberg, Certum’s founder and managing director. “Will’s wide-ranging experience in both the legal and business worlds will be an asset as we continue to innovate in the fast-growing world of litigation funding.” Certum Group created the first and only litigation risk transfer platform that combines insurance, premium finance, and litigation funding to provide tailored solutions for companies, litigants, and law firms. Founded 10 years ago, the team is comprised of former litigators, judicial clerks, actuaries, and financial professionals who design risk transfer and funding solutions to meet legal, business, and financial objectives. “I am delighted to join the talented team at Certum,” said Marra, who grows Certum’s presence in the New York City area. “Funding gives litigants with meritorious claims better access to the courts, and I look forward to helping Certum’s clients get access to litigation funding, insurance, and other solutions that will help them achieve their legal and business goals.” Marra’s unique blend of legal and financial expertise mirrors Certum’s distinctive approach to helping clients mitigate legal risk by offering the widest breadth of legal and financial products currently available in the market. Marra graduated magna cum laude from Harvard University and Harvard Law School. He co-teaches a course on litigation finance at the University of Pennsylvania’s Carey Law School, and his law review article, The Shadows of Litigation Finance, was published by the Vanderbilt Law Review. Prior to joining Certum, Marra spent several years at another litigation funder, where he managed litigation investments from sourcing and diligence through funding and resolution. Marra litigated commercial, constitutional, and appellate matters at Cooper & Kirk PLLC in Washington, D.C. He also clerked for both Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. of the U.S. Supreme Court and Chief Judge William H. Pryor Jr. of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.

About Certum Group

Certum Group provides bespoke solutions for companies facing the uncertainty of litigation. We are the leader in providing comprehensive alternative litigation strategies, including class action settlement insurance, litigation buyout insurance, judgment preservation insurance, adverse judgment insurance, contingency fee insurance, capital protection insurance, litigation funding, and claim monetization. Our team of experienced former litigators, insurance professionals, and risk mitigation specialists helps companies remove the financial and operational volatility arising out of litigation by transferring the outcome risk. Learn more at www.certumgroup.com.

Benefits of Litigation Financing for Debt Recovery in India

When looking to demonstrate the benefits of using litigation financing, it can often be easy to simply highlight its utility and effectiveness in isolation. However, for those unsure of whether to adopt a relatively new tool, it can be even more powerful to demonstrate the ways in which third-party funding is more useful than the alternatives when tackling a specific problem, such as debt recovery. In a guest article for Financial Express, Kundan Shahi, CEO of LegalPay, provides a comparative analysis of the effectiveness of litigation financing versus debt recovery agents (DRAs) within India.  Shahi highlights that the use of DRAs has been considered the standard approach for Indian financial institutions looking to recover bad loans. However, he also notes that DRAs have come under criticism for their low success rates, with only 2 in 10 cases reaching a positive resolution, as well as the ‘aggressive and intrusive’ methods used by DRAs that have bordered on illegality. Shahi acknowledges that although adoption of litigation financing in India has been slower than in other territories, it is beginning to gain momentum and can offer a real alternative for companies pursuing debt recovery. He argues that litigation funding avoids any of the aggressive tactics used by DRAs, ensuring ‘ethical and legal compliance’, whilst also acting as a way for institutions to reduce the financial risk of debt recovery. Furthermore, given the nature of litigation funders’ work where recovery of assets is paramount, there is an increased probability of higher recovery rates compared to DRAs.

Mill City Ventures III, Ltd. Extends Further Credit to Mustang Litigation Funding

Mill City Ventures III, Ltd. ("Mill City") (NASDAQ:MCVT), a specialty short-term finance and non-bank lender, announced today that it extended an additional $1 million of short-term loan principal to Mustang Funding LLC d/b/a Mustang Litigation Funding ("Mustang") and refinanced and extended earlier provided short-term loan principal. In December 2022, Mill City announced that it had entered into a non-binding letter of intent with Mustang contemplating a merger combination transaction with Mustang. Contemporaneously, Mill City provided Mustang with a $5 million short-term loan to provide additional capital. The most recent $1 million of additional short-term lending brings the total amount of capital committed to Mustang to $8 million. The principal amount of all short-term loans made to Mustang accrues interest at the per annum rate of 15% and becomes due and payable upon the earlier of May 31, 2024, or 90 days after any termination of discussions for the contemplated combination transaction. Mill City's Chief Executive Officer, Douglas M. Polinsky said, "[O]ur December 2022 announcement of our intention, subject to certain identified conditions and to entering into a definitive agreement with Mustang, to effect a combination transaction with Mustang signifies what we believe to be a transformational opportunity for Mill City and its shareholders. For the entirety of 2023, we have been working diligently, in a collaborative manner, with Mustang to lay the foundation for this combination transaction. Our most recent extension of further credit to Mustang aggregates to $8 million of total investment with Mustang-approaching 50% of our net assets-reflecting both our profound commitment and confidence in Mustang and our expectation of completing an eventual combination." Jimmy Beltz, Co-Founder and President of Mustang, commented, "We are extremely excited to have Mill City's support, evidenced by its continuing financial commitment to our company, and are working toward a definitive agreement for the merger. Mustang is continuing to grow its litigation funding business and anticipates that the merger will enable it to further capitalize on the opportunities available within the emerging litigation finance industry. Post-merger, Mustang expects to benefit from being able to access public markets for capital, while also presenting investors with the ability to participate in a differentiated, Nasdaq-listed, litigation finance company." Mill City does not anticipate providing any further updates with respect to a possible transaction with Mustang until the earlier to occur of its entry into a definitive agreement with Mustang or the termination of discussions.

An LFJ Conversation with Viren Mascarenhas

Viren Mascarenhas is a Partner in the Litigation and Arbitration Practice at Milbank LLP based in New York.  He specializes in construction, commercial and investment arbitration, and has represented investors in investment arbitrations against the governments of Argentina, Azerbaijan, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Bolivia, Ecuador, India, Italy, Mexico, Nigeria, Peru, the Philippines, the Russian Federation, Timor-Leste, Uruguay, and Venezuela. Viren has special expertise in commercial disputes in the energy and mining sectors, and construction disputes over energy infrastructure.  He has been ranked in international arbitration by Chambers Global, Chambers USA, Legal 500, Lawdragon 500, Who’s Who Legal, Euromoney Legal Media, Latinvex, and Law 360, and has been recognized more generally for his accomplishments as a lawyer by The New York Law Journal, Crain’s New York Business, the American Bar Association, the US National South Asian Bar Association, and the US LGBT Bar Association. Milbank is a full-services, international law firm, with offices in the US (New York, Los Angeles, and Washington DC), Brazil, Europe (London, Munich, and Frankfurt), and Asia (Beijing, Hong Kong, Singapore, Seoul and Tokyo).  Its Litigation and Arbitration practice thrive on complex cases in federal and state courts throughout the US, English courts, and arbitral tribunals. Below is our LFJ Conversation with Viren Mascarenhas: What first interested you in litigation finance? What experiences (positive or negative) have you had interacting with the sector?  My first encounter with the litigation finance industry goes back to 2011, when a funder instructed the firm where I was then an associate to assess the likelihood of an investor prevailing in a potential investment treaty arbitration against a South American state regarding the denial of a mining concession.  The experience helped me cut out the noise; focus on the key elements of an alleged wrongdoing; review the key evidence; and then use my judgment to assess the likely outcome.  As lawyers, we want to tell the full story when pleading a case—sometimes to a fault.  Litigation funders—like judges and arbitrators—rigorously try get to the heart of the matter quicker. My experience with the sector has always been positive.  In addition to being instructed by funders to do risk assessment, I have been able to secure funding successfully for my clients over the past decade from several different funders.  These were all meritorious matters in which my clients would not have been able to get a shot at justice without funding.  And their claims always have become stronger and more compelling based on insights shared by experienced funders during the due diligence/underwriting phases and exchanges during the arbitral proceedings. What trends are you seeing pertaining to arbitration funding of various legal sectors? How is the landscape evolving?  The trends I have seen are:
  1. Funders have become more selective about funding investment treaty claims.  The increased selectivity usually is unrelated to the merits of the cases—which often times are compelling—but concern over the length of time tribunals are taking to render awards, and subsequent time thereafter to enforce the award if the respondent state does not comply willingly with the award.  The profile of the sovereign defendant (are they likely to pay; do they have enforceable assets) has become critical to the funding assessment.
  2. By contrast, funders are increasingly keen to fund commercial and construction arbitrations.  They are very eager to work with corporates that likely have a portfolio of arbitrations at any given time.
  3. More players exist in the market now to buy a stake or all of an arbitration award than a decade ago.
What are the regional issues that arise when funding arbitration disputes?  It is becoming increasingly clearer in certain jurisdictions, especially in Asia, about the extent to which litigation funding is permitted and under what terms because of recent legislative or common law developments in those jurisdictions.  However, clients from those jurisdictions who are seeking litigation funding sometimes have “sticker shock” when reviewing funding terms being offered to them either to fund their matters or to “buy” their awards.  They need more handholding when it comes to understanding the economics of litigation funding, largely because of a lack of familiarity with the litigation funding market. Sometimes, local law firms that have strong relationships with local clients may have difficulty securing funding either because they are not known to the funders (relationships matter) or because they have not represented their clients in specialized arbitrations, such as construction or investment arbitrations.  In these circumstances, local law firms have reached out to me to serve as lead or co-counsel during the funding process and then subsequently in the arbitrations. What are the challenges presented in terms of compliance with the losing party during an arbitral award, and how do you navigate those?  Enforcement of international arbitration awards has got a relatively bad rap now because of investment arbitration.  Increasingly, sovereign states seek annulment of an award as a matter of course, just to tie things up in annulment proceedings for several years to demonstrate to their voting constituents that the government used all options available to it.  And even after an award survives annulment challenges, some states still do not pay up, resulting in years of enforcement litigation chasing after those state assets that are not protected by sovereign immunity. The challenges are much fewer in commercial and construction arbitration.  Unless the stakes are very high (a “bet the company” arbitration), award debtors do not frequently seek annulment of an award given the low chances of ultimately being successful.  Unless the award debtor is a true deadbeat, it will tend to comply with the award or at least offer to settle the award at a discount.  Often, these commercial actors have long-standing relationships with each other, so the arbitration outcome is just one component of the business relationship with the counterparty and overall reputation in the industry. What are the trends / key developments you are keeping an eye on in relation to litigation/arbitration funding that impact how you think about your international arbitration portfolio?  The main developments that I focus on are:
  • New mining claims from investors in the critical minerals industry. These are minerals that are essential to the energy transition (such as lithium, which is used in battery storage). Governments all over the world, such as in Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, Mexico, Zimbabwe, and Zambia, are enacting new measures to regulate and control these critical minerals.  Many of the mining companies or their investors (such as electric vehicle automakers) are new to the mining sector and/or are junior or small mining companies.  They likely will need third-party funding for their claims—and there will be claims in the next few decades given the commercial and geo-political fights over critical minerals in the supply chains.
  • More arbitrations in the renewables sector (commercial, construction, and investment arbitrations) all over the world as governments continue to implement their obligations under the Paris Agreement and fulfill their Nationally Determined Contributions to invest in renewable energy, low carbon, and hydrogen projects. As has been the case in Italy, Spain and other European countries, governments may change a key economic input (such as the price of feed-in tariffs) that led to foreign investment in the renewables sector, resulting in investment treaty disputes.  There will also be more commercial disputes as new technologies in the sector evolve and the limits of existing technologies in long-term projects (wear and tear) are tested.
  • My firm Milbank frequently serves as counsel to lenders in financing projects. If the project company is tied up in disputes, lenders need comfort on recovering their loans, which requires ballparking damages and obtaining protections in the form of insurance products or indemnities. This has led to me facilitating more conversations between my finance/restructuring partners and litigation funders.
  • Discussions with clients over whether to secure ATE insurance even if an arbitration is not seated in a jurisdiction such as England that adopts a default principle of “loser pays.” We are seeing more adverse costs awards against unsuccessful claimants in the investment arbitration space.  So, a client may want to consider whether to obtain ATE insurance in addition to third party funding, even though this might mean more overall borrowing.

Litigation Funder LegalPay Closes Rs 12 Crore Interim Financing Bond

LegalPay, India’s first and largest player in the legal financing industry, has announced the successful closure of its Rs 12 crore Interim Financing Bonds. This innovative investment instrument in the fixed income category, which was launched earlier this year in January, boasts a remarkable coupon rate of 14% compounding annually. "We are thrilled to celebrate the success of our Interim Financing Bonds and our contribution to the economic revitalization of companies like Lavasa Corporation," said Mr. Kundan Shahi, Founder & CEO at LegalPay. "We are proud to have successfully closed our Interim Financing Bonds, but our true pride lies in the impact we create in the legal & insolvency ecosystem and the value we create for our investors and our clients. We are here to alleviate financial burdens, mitigate risks, and ensure that justice prevails." The bond has set new standards in the financial industry by realizing its opportunity in an impressive timeframe of just eight months despite having an original tenure of 36 months with a callable feature. LegalPay's Interim Financing Bonds represent a paradigm shift in the world of investments, offering a unique opportunity to investors and companies alike. The funds raised through this visionary initiative have been strategically employed to support Lavasa Corporation, a prominent player in the infrastructure sector. The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) approved the resolution plan of Darwin Platform Infrastructure Limited (DPIL), which offered Rs 1,814 crore to the creditors and homebuyers of Lavasa. Raj Infrastructure Development India, one of Lavasa's creditors, filed a bankruptcy petition against the company after it failed to meet its payment obligations. The petition was approved in August 2018. Notably, LegalPay's unwavering commitment to a rigorous underwriting process played a pivotal role in mitigating the perceived risks associated with this opportunity. In the face of skepticism, LegalPay's cutting-edge technology and AI-driven analysis, combined with its diligence and expertise, prevailed, resulting in the rapid realization of this investment. This remarkable success in just 8 months stands as a testament to LegalPay's strong underwriting, powered by advanced technology, and its dedication to delivering outstanding results to its investors. However, LegalPay's impact extends far beyond this successful bond closure. LegalPay is dedicated to providing critical capital to companies undergoing insolvency, breathing new life into struggling businesses, and fuellingeconomic growth. LegalPay's innovative approach is revolutionizing the way companies navigate litigation challenges, alleviating their financial burdens and providing a lifeline for those seeking funding for their legal battles. About LegalPay Currently managing claims worth INR 2700Crores, LegalPay aims to manage INR 5000 Crores with its proprietary tech and AI by the end of FY 2025. This demonstrates the company's dedication to substantially impacting India's legal and financial landscape. With groundbreaking instruments like Interim Financing Bonds and a commitment to supporting companies in insolvency and financing legal claims, LegalPay is making a substantial impact on the Indian legal andfinancial landscape while creating quintessential value for both businesses and investors.

Funding Opportunity: 4 Rivers Seeks Funding for Breach of Contract Claim

Funding is required for a claim involving a concession held by a state-of-the-art industrial facility utilizing leading technologies to recycle used tires into rubber raw material, rubber compound, and value-added rubber end products. The concession agreement is between the plaintiff and a quasi-governmental entity in the GCC region. The claim is likely to be the subject of an ICC arbitration. We have strong evidence to show breaches of the concession agreement, including delays by the respondent(s) in facilitating land ownership (Building Permit) and providing utility services as required for the project; and failure to provide a minimum quantity of tires as stipulated in the agreement. Approximately USD 1 million funding is required. Sunk costs plus interest are circa USD 10 million but a higher figure can be supported based on a DCF calculation of lost profits. Any interested parties can contact Peter Petyt at: peter@4rivers.legal

Burford Capital Statement on YPF Damages Ruling

Burford Capital Limited, the leading global finance and asset management firm focused on law, today releases the following statement in connection with the September 8, 2023 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (the “Ruling”) issued by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the “Court”) in connection with the Petersen and Eton Park cases against the Republic of Argentina and YPF (the “Case” or the “YPF Litigation”).

The Ruling follows a prior decision on March 31, 2023 by the Court granting summary judgment on liability against Argentina and setting for an evidentiary hearing questions around the date on which Argentina should have made a tender offer for YPF’s shares and the appropriate rate of pre-judgment interest to be applied.  That evidentiary hearing was held on July 26-28, 2023 and the Ruling is the Court’s decision on the issues raised for hearing.

The Court decided the issues raised at the hearing in Petersen’s and Eton Park’s (collectively, “Plaintiffs’”) favor, holding that the appropriate date for the tender offer was April 16, 2012 and that pre-judgment interest should run from May 3, 2012 at a simple interest rate of 8%.

The Court has asked the parties to memorialize the Ruling in a proposed judgment and submit it to the Court, which Petersen and Eton Park will endeavor to do forthwith.  We discuss below the computation of potential damages but in round numbers the Court’s Ruling implies a judgment against Argentina of approximately $16 billion.

In other words, the Ruling results in a complete win against Argentina at the high end of the possible range of damages.

Jonathan Molot, Burford’s Chief Investment Officer who leads Burford’s work on the Case, commented:

“We have been pursuing this case since 2015 and it has involved substantial Burford management time along with the dedicated engagement of a team of some of the best lawyers on the planet from multiple law firms and world-class experts (going up against very good lawyers, and winning). Burford is uniquely positioned to pursue these kinds of cases and secure wins for clients and substantial returns for shareholders – not only because of the size and scale of these kinds of cases, but because of the internal and external resources we can uniquely bring to bear. There is no aspect of this case, from strategy to minutiae, that did not involve an experienced Burford team spending many thousands of hours getting to this point. This case represents what Burford is all about and exemplifies the contribution we make to the civil justice system – without us, there would be no justice in this complicated and long-running case for Petersen and Eton Park.”

Christopher Bogart, Burford’s Chief Executive Officer, commented:

“In our recent shareholder letter, we referred to the YPF-related assets as one of Burford’s four pillars of value and I’m pleased to see this extraordinary win and the value it could create for our shareholders once we complete the litigation process and collect from Argentina. The Ruling is a major milestone for Burford and we continue to see momentum in our overall portfolio and continued demand for our capital and services.”

Introductory matters

As is customary in US litigation, the Ruling was released without prior notice to Burford or the parties by its posting on PACER, the publicly available official US federal court site, at 10:45am EDT on September 8, 2023, and was thus public immediately upon release. The Ruling is also available in its entirety on Burford’s IR website at http://investors.burfordcapital.com for the convenience of investors who did not wish to register for a PACER account.

While Burford offers in this release its views and interpretation of the Ruling, those are qualified in their entirety by the actual text of the Ruling and we caution that investors cannot rely on Burford’s statements in preference to the actual Ruling. In the event of any inconsistency between this release and the text of the actual Ruling, the text of the actual Ruling will prevail and be dispositive. Burford disclaims, to the fullest extent permitted by law, any obligation to update its views and interpretation as the litigation proceeds. Moreover, the Case remains in active litigation and Argentina has declared its intention to appeal any decision; all litigation carries significant risks of uncertainty and unpredictability until final resolution, including the risk of total loss. Finally, Burford is and will continue to be constrained by legal privilege and client confidences in terms of the scope of its ability to speak publicly about the Case or the Ruling.

Burford also cautions that there are meaningful remaining risks in the Case, including further proceedings before the Court, appeals, enforcement and collateral litigation in other jurisdictions. Moreover, litigation matters often resolve for considerably less than the amount of any judgment rendered by the courts and to the extent that any settlement or resolution discussions occur in this Case no public communication about those discussions will be possible until their conclusion.

The Ruling

The Court previously held that (i) the bylaws “on their face, required that the Republic make a tender offer” for Petersen’s and YPF’s shares; (ii) “the Republic failed to make the tender offer”; and (iii) the failure “harmed Plaintiffs because they never received the compensated exit” that the bylaws promised. Indeed, the Court held that “once the Court decides the legal issues, the relatively simple facts in this case will demand a particular outcome” and held that “there is no question of fact as to whether the Republic breached”.

Thus, the Court held that “Plaintiffs were damaged by the Republic because Plaintiffs were entitled to receive a tender offer that would have provided them with a compensated exit but did not”.

The Court previously held that the damages to be awarded will consist of the tender offer price under Formula D of the bylaws calculated in US dollars as of a constructive notice date that is 40 days prior to Argentina taking control and triggering the tender offer obligation. The Court said it must decide as a factual matter whether the operative notice date for the calculation is 40 days before April 16, 2012, when the Presidential intervention decree was implemented, or 40 days before May 7, 2012, when the Argentine legislature took follow-up action.  In the Ruling, the Court concluded that April 16, 2012 was the appropriate date.

The calculation of damages using a notice date that is 40 days before the April 16, 2012 takeover was included in Plaintiffs' publicly filed summary judgment brief and would imply tender offer consideration of approximately $7.5 billion for Petersen and $900 million for Eton Park, before interest.

The Court also previously reserved for determination the prejudgment interest rate that would run from the date of the breach in 2012 through the issuance of a final judgment in 2023. The Court accepted that “the commercial rate applied by the Argentine courts is the appropriate measure” and noted that Plaintiffs had pleaded that that rate was “between 6% and 8%”, but “the Court reserves judgment on the precise rate it will utilize”.  After the hearing, the Court ultimately applied an 8% rate from May 3, 2012 until the date of the judgment, and thereafter interest will accrue at the applicable US federal rate until payment.

Subject to final computations by the parties’ experts, that finding implies interest of approximately $6.8 million for Petersen and $815 million for Eton Park, yielding a total judgment of approximately $14.3 billion for Petersen and $1.7 billion for Eton Park, or $16 billion in total.

Investors may find notable the Court’s commentary on Burford’s role in the case:

The Court also rejects the Republic’s effort to inject Burford Capital into these proceedings. This remains a case brought by plaintiffs against a defendant for its wrongful conduct towards them, and the relevant question is what the Republic owes Plaintiffs to compensate them for the loss of the use of their money, not what Plaintiffs have done or will do with what they are owed. The Republic owes no more or less because of Burford Capital’s involvement. Furthermore, the Republic pulled the considerable levers available to it as a sovereign to attempt to take what it should have paid for and has since spared no expense in its defense. If Plaintiffs were required to trade a substantial part of their potential recovery to secure the financing necessary to bring their claims, in Petersen’s case because it was driven to bankruptcy, and litigate their claims to conclusion against a powerful sovereign defendant that has behaved in this manner, this is all the more reason to award Plaintiffs the full measure of their damages.

Next steps

The Court has asked the parties to submit a proposed judgment reflecting the Ruling, which Plaintiffs will endeavor to do promptly.  Once that judgment issues, Argentina has indicated its intention to appeal. There is also a process for seeking reconsideration from the District Court of its own ruling, although such motions rarely prevail as they are being made to the same judge who decided the matter originally.

Once the Court issues its final judgment, that judgment will be appealable as of right to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.

The Second Circuit presently is taking around a year to resolve appeals once filed, although there is meaningful deviation from that mean. The District Court’s judgment would be enforceable while the appeal is pending unless Argentina posts a bond to secure its performance, which we consider unlikely, or unless a court grants a relatively unusual stay.

Following the Second Circuit’s decision, either party can seek review from the Supreme Court of the United States. The Supreme Court accepts cases only on a discretionary basis and we believe the likelihood of it accepting a commercial case of this nature that does not present a contested issue of law is quite low, particularly given that Argentina has already once in this Case unsuccessfully sought Supreme Court review.

With an enforceable judgment in hand, Plaintiffs will either need to negotiate a resolution of the matter with Argentina, which would certainly result in what would likely be a substantial discount to the judgment amount in exchange for agreed payment, or engage in an enforcement campaign against Argentina which would likely be of extended duration relying on Burford’s and its advisors’ judgment enforcement expertise. Burford will not provide publicly any information about its enforcement or settlement strategies.

Burford’s position

Burford has different economic arrangements in each of the Petersen and Eton Park cases. At bottom, on a net basis, we expect that the Burford balance sheet will be entitled to around 35% of any proceeds generated in the Petersen case and around 73% of any proceeds generated in the Eton Park case.

In the Petersen case, Burford is entitled by virtue of a financing agreement entered into with the Spanish insolvency receiver of the Petersen bankruptcy estate to 70% of any recovery obtained in the Petersen case. That 70% entitlement is not affected by Burford’s spending on the cases, which is for Burford’s account; it is a simple division of any proceeds. From that 70%, certain entitlements to the law firms involved in the case and other case expenses will need to be paid, reducing that number to around 58%.

Burford has, however, sold 38.75% of its entitlement in the Petersen case to third party investors, reducing Burford’s net share of proceeds to around 35% (58% x 61.25%).

In the Eton Park case, there is both a funding agreement and a monetization transaction. The net combined impact of those transactions is that Burford would expect to receive around 73% of any proceeds. Burford has not sold any of its Eton Park entitlement.

In both Petersen and Eton Park, the numbers above are approximations and will vary somewhat depending on the ultimate level of case costs by the end of the Case, as we expect continued significant spending on the Case.

About Burford Capital

Burford Capital is the leading global finance and asset management firm focused on law. Its businesses include litigation finance and risk managementasset recovery and a wide range of legal finance and advisory activities. Burford is publicly traded on the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE: BUR) and the London Stock Exchange (LSE: BUR), and it works with companies and law firms around the world from its offices in New York, London, Chicago, Washington, DC, Singapore, Dubai, Sydney and Hong Kong.

For more information, please visit www.burfordcapital.com.