The following piece was contributed by Guido Demarco, Director and Head of Legal Assets at Stonward. In a groundbreaking legal battle that pitted Petersen Energía SAU and Petersen Energía Inversora SAU[1] (the Petersen Companies) against the Republic of Argentina, the recent decision by the District Court of Southern District of New York has far-reaching implications for the litigation funding industry. This landmark ruling reaffirms the critical role litigation funders play in providing access to justice, particularly in complex cases involving powerful sovereign entities. The Petersen case was a high-stake dispute that arose when Argentina failed to fulfill its obligations under the bylaws of YPF S.A, the national oil company. When Argentina privatized the company during the 90s, the country promised under the bylaws a compensated exit to shareholders – a mandatory tender offer - if Argentina were to reacquire control of the company by any means. In 2012, Argentina expropriated Repsol's 51% stake in YPF but did not fulfill this promise, eventually plunging the Petersen Companies into insolvency and liquidation. To fight back against this injustice, the resourceful insolvency administrator of the companies, Armando Betancor, devised a liquidation plan in 2015 that included securing litigation funding. Given the immense risks involved, the Petersen Companies had to assign 70% of any recovery obtained in the claims to Burford Capital, the litigation funder. These risks included fighting a fierce sovereign in New York courts, which implied paying high attorney and experts' fees during a lengthy period, as well as enforcement risks. During the trial, Argentina attempted to diminish the awarded damages by arguing that the litigation funder was the primary beneficiary of the compensation, seeking to shift the focus away from the plaintiffs' rightful claims. This tactic sought to undermine the legitimacy of the litigation funding arrangement, implying that the claimants should receive reduced damages due to the involvement of a third-party funder. However, the court's decision firmly rejected this argument, emphasizing that the responsibility for compensation lay with Argentina, regardless of the funding arrangement, ensuring that the claimants were not deprived of the full measure of their entitled damages. In a single paragraph, the Judge unequivocally dismissed Argentina's attempts to derail the case by injecting the role of Burford Capital into the proceedings. The Judge emphasized that the essence of the case remained between the plaintiffs and the defendant who inequitably refused to comply with its promises: “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.” Ironically, the most powerful impact for the litigation funding industry comes not from a lengthy legal argument, but from a single paragraph tucked away in a footnote of the judgment. Within this inconspicuous footnote, the Judge's words resonate loudly, reaffirming the fundamental principles underpinning litigation funding. It reminds us that justice is blind to the funding mechanisms employed to level the playing field and that litigants should not be penalized for seeking financial support, particularly when facing formidable sovereign opponents and obstacles. No doubt, this will be a beacon in times in which the industry is under heavy scrutiny, especially in Europe under the so-called Voss Report. The ruling reaffirms the legitimacy and importance of litigation funders in enabling access to justice in complex cases where financial backing is essential to bring claims to fruition. The Court's decision in the Petersen case is a significant victory not only for the plaintiffs but also for the litigation funding industry. It sets a powerful precedent that reinforces the rights of litigants to secure funding for their cases without sacrificing the full measure of their damages, contributing to a more equitable and accessible legal system. This decision will inspire confidence among potential litigants, funders, and investors alike, encouraging continued growth in the litigation funding industry. We, at Stonward, are proud of having Armando Betancor, the insolvency administrator of the Petersen companies, in our Board of Investment. [1] Petersen Energía SAU and Petersen Energía Inversora SAU v. Republic of Argentina, District Court of Southern District of New York, 15 Civ. 2739 (LAP) - 16 Civ. 8569 (LAP)

Burford Capital Limited ("Burford"), the leading global finance and asset management firm focused on law, today announces its unaudited financial results at and for the three and six months ended June 30, 2023.1 Burford's report on Form 6-K at and for the three and six months ended June 30, 2023, including unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements (the "2Q23 Quarterly Report"), is available on the Burford Capital website at http://investors.burfordcapital.com. Christopher Bogart, Chief Executive Officer of Burford Capital, commented: "We have produced the strongest set of six-month financial results in Burford's history, with net income attributable to shareholders of nearly $240 million and tangible book value per share growth of 12% over the past six months. Our core portfolio generated a lot of cash with realized gains tripling on our core portfolio realizations, and new business was very strong. Our new valuation methodology is sensitive to interest rate changes and thus higher rates during the first six months of 2023 were a headwind for the fair value of our core portfolio, especially during the second quarter, but these valuation movements are non-cash and unrealized and are expected to continue to fluctuate over time. Operating expenses reflect strong portfolio performance and certain idiosyncratic events." Highlights Key activity

• 2Q23 realized gains tripled to $59 million, up 254% from $17 million in 2Q22
  • 1H23 realized gains of $94 million, up 255% from $27 million in 1H22
• 2Q23 realizations of $133 million, up 167% from $50 million in 2Q22
  • 1H23 realizations of $195 million, up 178% from $70 million in 1H22, reflecting increased portfolio velocity, as the case backlog in the courts continues to clear
• 2Q23 cash receipts3 of $150 million, up 266% from $41 million in 2Q22
  • 1H23 cash receipts3 of $247 million, up 148% from $99 million in 1H22, primarily driven by realizations including three matters that generated aggregate proceeds of $147 million
• 2Q23 deployments of $181 million, up 159% from $70 million in 2Q22
  • 1H23 deployments of $248 million, up 103% from $122 million in 1H22, reflecting in part the balance sheet's greater participation in new capital provision-direct assets

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.

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.

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.