Litigation Capital Management Limited (AIM:LIT), an alternative asset manager specializing in dispute financing solutions internationally, announces positive progress on an investment forming part of its portfolio of direct investments.

Successful award in investment in arbitration

The Company is pleased to announce a positive development on one of LCM’s 100% direct balance sheet investments which was heard by an ICC International Court of Arbitration tribunal.  A partial award on liability and quantum was granted in favour of the funded party. This means that the funded party has succeeded in the claim and the only matter yet to be determined is the costs award. The Company expects the funded party to also be successful in an award of its costs, however, that costs award does not affect LCM’s interest or its potential returns.

The award is subject to challenge in the court by the respondent. That challenge is not in the nature of an appeal. LCM is confident that the award will be upheld. LCM has invested approximately AUD$ 2.9m (USD $2m) in this arbitral dispute.  The investment performance is protected by a compounding interest rate.

Patrick Moloney, CEO of LCM, commented: “We are pleased with the positive adjudication in this investment. Despite the Respondent challenging the award we are confident that the award will be maintained. In the current uncertain macro-economic environment our direct investments, as well as those made alongside our fund investments, continue to demonstrate the non-cyclical and uncorrelated nature of the returns from litigation funding.

This award is expected to generate a return in line with management expectations”.

Enquiries

Litigation Capital Management (LCM) is an alternative asset manager specialising in disputes financing solutions internationally, which operates two business models. The first is direct investments made from LCM's permanent balance sheet capital and the second is third party fund management. Under those two business models, LCM currently pursues three investment strategies: Single-case funding, Portfolio funding and Acquisitions of claims. LCM generates its revenue from both its direct investments and also performance fees through asset management.

LCM has an unparalleled track record driven by disciplined project selection and robust risk management. Currently headquartered in Sydney, with offices in London, Singapore, Brisbane and Melbourne, LCM listed on AIM in December 2018, trading under the ticker LIT.

www.lcmfinance.com

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

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.

• 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.