LegalPay, India’s largest legal financier, has announced the exit of its commercial litigation financing SPV (Special Purpose Vehicle), delivering 27% IRR over a tenure of less than 2 years. LegalPay currently manages INR 2,500 crores in claims under management and looks to add additional INR 5,000 crores in calendar year 2023.  LegalPay, India’s leading legal financier, has announced the full exit of its Litigation Financing fund that it had started in August 2021. The Company funded late-stage commercial and arbitration litigations across India through this fund.  Under the supervision of its experienced leadership team, LegalPay uses an in-house proprietary technology using decision trees and scoring algorithms to screen and fund these commercial litigations. Such above-par returns are a testament to the Company’s robust technology-based screening, sourcing, and diligence infrastructure.  LegalPay was founded in 2019 by Kundan Shahi with the aim of financing legal expenses. LegalPay is India’s first and largest litigation and interim finance provider. It is backed by investors such as 9Unicorns. LegalPay finances dispute across sectors such as logistics, EPC, Saas, and financial services. Businesses are using litigation financing as a way to offload the cost and risk by paying a portion of the recovery only in the case of a successful outcome. In addition to the capital infusion to the dispute, LegalPay provides massive intangible value such as strategic expertise and legal professional network.  “We are proud to have generated such a high IRRs on our commercial disputes litigation financing fund, while demonstrating our expertise and strength of our technology infrastructure,” said Kundan Shahi, CEO of LegalPay. “We remain committed to solve the problem of legal financing and make such product an absolute necessity for businesses, regardless of their financial prowess.”  LegalPay has established itself as a market leader in litigation finance, and its strong performance as demonstrated by its fund closure reinforces its position as a market leader. The fund’s high IRRs is a positive development for the company and its stakeholders, highlighting LegalPay’s commitment to delivering value to its customers and shareholders.  LegalPay has also provided similar exit to its investors through their Health Care SPV where investors were able to make 26%+ IRRs in less than 9 months.  Currently, investors can diversify their portfolio on LegalPay’s platform and enjoy such benefits. They can invest in Interim Financing Bonds on LegalPay’s website. These bonds are fixed-income instruments to finance the expenses of companies undergoing the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) which are linked to an individual’s DEMAT account. These diversified bonds are live on the website with a minimum investment of Rs.10,000/- and provide attractive and high-yielding returns between 14-16% on your investments.

A new request for funding by an Irish law firm seeks financing for commercial proceedings in the London High Court on behalf of a private company and two of its directors. The claim is being brought against an unnamed European Union state authority in relation to the alleged breach of a non-disclosure agreement which then led to the alleged theft of the plaintiff’s intellectual property. The EU state authority is reportedly one with “delegated responsibility for motorway infrastructure”, whilst the claimant’s intellectual property is described as “a patented micropayment solution”. The proposed defendants reportedly engaged in anti-competitive behavior and abused their power with regards to the “toll road collection business”, leading to the plaintiffs losing profits whilst the defendants gained. Interested parties should contact: doran@doranwotoole.com +353 1 204 2990 Doran W. OToole & Co Solicitors Bray Office County Wicklow Ireland

Winshear Gold Corp. (TSXV: WINS) (‘Winshear’, the ‘Company’, or the ‘Claimant’), formerly Helio Resource Corp., provides the following update on the dispute with the United Republic of Tanzania (“Tanzania”) which is the subject of arbitration through the International Centre for Settlement of Investments Disputes (“ICSID”), a member of the World Bank.

The Company reports that the evidentiary hearing commences today in Washington D.C.. A three-person tribunal panel is presiding over the court hearings, which are expected to conclude on or before the close of business on Friday February 17^th, 2023.

The ICSID Convention has been ratified by 158 States, including Tanzania. An award issued by an ICSID tribunal is enforceable in any one of those 158 member States as if it were a judgment of one of their own courts.

Winshear is represented by the international law firms LALIVE and Boies Schiller Flexner in the arbitration process. Both firms specialise in international arbitration with the Claimant seeking compensation of in excess of CDN$130M for the loss of its investment in Tanzania (including interest which continues to accrue). In addition, the Claimant seeks reimbursement of its arbitration costs and fees by Tanzania.

A litigation funding facility for US$3.3M is in place with Delta Capital Partners Management (“DELTA”), a firm out of headquartered in Chicago Illinois that specializes in litigation funding. This funding facility covers all legal costs associated with arbitration and is only repayable in the event of a successful award that is recovered from the United Republic of Tanzania.

Background to Claim

In July 2017, the Government of Tanzania amended the Mining Act 2010 by, inter alia, abolishing the Retention Licence classification. The Company’s SMP Mineral Resource was wholly contained within four Retention Licences.

On 10 January 2018, Tanzania published the new Mining (Mineral Rights) Regulations 2018, which cancelled all Retention Licences at which point they ceased to have any legal effect. The rights over all areas under Retention Licences, including the Retention Licences held for the SMP Gold Project, were immediately transferred to the Government of Tanzania.

During the time from January 2018 to December 2019, the Company actively engaged with the Tanzanian Ministry for Minerals and the Mining Commission in an effort to resolve a suitable tenure mechanism for the Project Licence to be reinstated, without success.

On 19 December 2019, the Mining Commission of Tanzania announced a public invitation to tender for the joint development of areas covered previously by Retention Licences. The invitation provided that the successful bidder should compensate the previous Retention Licence holder.

On 20 December 2019, the Mining Commission of Tanzania announced a revised public invitation to tender, which removed the condition that the successful bidder compensate the previous retention licence holder.

Through the measures described above, Tanzania has removed the ownership of the Project from the Claimant, and the Claimant alleges that Tanzania, in doing so, has breached its obligations to the Claimant under the Canadian-Tanzania BIT and international law. These include, but are not limited to:

1. Tanzania’s obligation not to nationalise or expropriate the Claimant’s investments or subject them to measures having effect equivalent to nationalisation or expropriation without prompt, adequate and effective compensation under the BIT; and
2. Tanzania’s obligation to accord fair and equitable treatment and full protection and security to the Claimant’s investment and not to impair by unreasonable or discriminatory measures the maintenance, use, enjoyment or disposal of the Claimant’s investment under the BIT.

Under the BIT the evidentiary hearing underway in Washington is being video recorded and will be made available to the public for review. Winshear will make this available to shareholders and the public on its website when it is available.

About Winshear Gold Corp.

Winshear Gold Corp. is a Canadian-based minerals exploration company advancing the Gaban Gold Project in the Puno region of Peru. Gaban is a possible hard-rock source for the modern-day alluvial gold rush underway in the Madre de Dios basin downstream.

The Company is in the process of concluding fully funded arbitration proceedings against the Tanzanian Government to recover its investment and damages for the expropriation of its SMP Gold Project in Tanzania.

For more information, please contact Irene Dorsman at +1 (604) 200 7874 or visit www.winshear.com

ON BEHALF OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS

“Richard D. Williams” Richard Williams, CEO

Neither the TSX Venture Exchange nor its Regulation Services Provider (as that term is defined in the policies of the TSX Venture Exchange) accepts responsibility for the adequacy or accuracy of this release.

Cautions Regarding Forward-Looking Statements

This news release includes certain statements and information that may contain forward-looking information within the meaning of applicable Canadian securities laws. All statements in this news release, other than statements of historical facts, are forward-looking statements and contain forward-looking information.

Generally, forward-looking information can be identified by the use of forward-looking terminology such as "intends" or "anticipates", or variations of such words and phrases or statements that certain actions, events or results "may", "could", "should", "would" or "occur". Forward-looking statements are based on the opinions and estimates of management as of the date such statements are made and they are subject to known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors that may cause the actual results, level of activity, performance or achievements of the Company to be materially different from those expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements or forward-looking information, including the risks normally associated with arbitration cases. Although management of the Company has attempted to identify important factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those contained in forward-looking statements or forward-looking information, there may be other factors that cause results not to be as anticipated, estimated or intended. There can be no assurance that such statements will prove to be accurate, as actual results and future events could differ materially from those anticipated in such statements. Accordingly, readers should not place undue reliance on forward-looking statements and forward-looking information. The Company does not undertake to update any forward-looking statements or forward-looking information that are incorporated by reference herein, except in accordance with applicable securities laws.

The following article is a contribution from Ben Quarmby and Jonathan E. Barbee, Partner and Counsel at MoloLamken LLP, respectively.  Litigation funders have trade secrets on their minds.  Since the introduction of the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA) in 2016, trade secrets litigation has been on the rise.  Over a thousand trade secrets cases were filed in federal court in both 2021 and 2022.  By all accounts, that trend is set to continue.  Big verdicts have followed, with some trade secrets verdicts now rivaling the biggest patent verdicts.  In the information age, a company’s most valuable intellectual property may not be its patents after all, but the wealth of non-patented, proprietary information surrounding its ideas—its trade secrets. Trade secrets cases can be more attractive to litigation funders than patent cases.  The funding of patent deals is regularly scuttled by patent expirations, validity concerns (especially Section 101 patent eligibility concerns), the threat of inter partes reviews (IPRs) at the United States Patent and Trademark Office, and the perceived focus of the Federal Circuit on reversing the largest patent verdicts that come before it.  Trade secrets side-step many of these issues.  They do not expire.  They are less likely to be sunk by an obscure prior art reference.  They are not subject to IPR proceedings.  And they are generally not subject to scrutiny by the Federal Circuit.  They also offer many of the same benefits to plaintiffs as patent cases: they too can be rooted in invention stories that will resonate with juries and lead to exemplary damages. They offer their own challenges, of course.  Unlike patent cases, there is no “innocent” misappropriation with trade secrets.  A defendant must often come into contact with the plaintiff’s trade secrets for a claim to arise.  Successful trade secret claims usually require a chain of events that put the trade secrets in the hands of the defendant.  Patent plaintiffs do not face those hurdles. Finding promising trade secrets cases requires identifying the types of companies that will regularly find themselves in situations that lead to trade secret misappropriation: joint ventures, startups seeking investment by larger industry players, acquisition targets, and companies operating in industries with high employee turnover and mobility.  And once those cases are found, performing due diligence on them requires a very specific type of focus. The following steps are critical:

• Identify the Trade Secrets. Ensure at the outset that there are clean, concrete, and well-defined trade secrets to assert.  In some jurisdictions, plaintiffs must identify their trade secrets before proceeding with discovery—failure to do so with sufficient precision can stop the litigation dead in its tracks.  If plaintiffs can clearly identify the form of the trade secrets (e.g., scientific data, customer lists, product recipes, hard copy documents, etc.), the chain of custody for those trade secrets, and any changes made to the trade secrets over time, their case is far more likely to withstand the test of litigation.
• Verify the Plaintiff’s Protective Measures. Defendants will generally argue that a plaintiff has not taken adequate steps to protect its trade secrets.  You need a clean and clear story to tell about the steps a plaintiff has taken to protect its intellectual property.  Tangible evidence of such steps—company policies, firewalls, passwords—is invaluable.  And there should be a narrow or controlled universe of third parties—if any—with whom the information has been shared.  Each additional third party with access to the information can increase the uncertainty surrounding the trade secrets and affect the value of the case.
• Estimate the Value of Trade Secrets. Calculating damages in trade secrets cases can be trickier than in patent cases.  It is harder to find comparable licenses or valuations for similar types of trade secrets since trade secrets are just that—secret.  There are also fewer established damages methodologies in trade secrets cases.  While this allows for more flexibility and creativity in crafting a damages theory, it can also make trade secret damages susceptible to challenges.  The Georgia-Pacific factors used so often in patent cases can help determine reasonable royalty rates in trade secrets cases, but courts have yet to adopt those factors as the definitive standard for trade secrets.  In conducting due diligence, hire a damages expert to estimate the value of trade secrets before filing a case.
• Assess the Value of Injunctive Relief. Trade secrets cases are often better candidates for injunctive relief than patent cases.  Determine the strength of a case’s injunctive relief prospects early on.  The likelihood of injunctive relief has to be factored into the economic value of a trade secrets case, since it will directly impact the likelihood of early settlement.
• Determine the Narrative. Storytelling matters in every IP case.  But it perhaps matters in trade secrets cases even more so.  It is imperative to have reliable witnesses who can illustrate the plaintiff’s narrative in a compelling and clean way.  Test the potential witnesses before considering funding.  Let them tell their story—and challenge that story—under conditions that will most closely approximate those at trial.  Attractive cases should tell a persuasive story about how the trade secrets reflect plaintiffs’ know-how, experience, and competitive edge, and also expose the motives for defendants to steal those trade secrets.

These considerations are a starting point.  Due diligence should be tailored to the particular facts and nuances of each potential trade secrets case.  Careful consideration of these factors will help ensure that funders make the wisest investments, while avoiding common pitfalls in trade secrets litigation.