Burford Capital Limited, the leading global finance and asset management firm focused on law, today announces that it has raised a new $360 million private investment fund, the Burford Advantage Master Fund LP (“Advantage Fund”). The Advantage Fund focuses on lower risk, lower return pre-settlement litigation investments than we include in our core legal finance portfolio, targeting matters expected to produce returns in the 12-20% IRR range. The Advantage Fund fills the gap between the Burford Alternative Income Fund, which focuses on lower return post-settlement investments, and Burford’s core business. The Advantage Fund has a structure that rewards Burford more than traditional fund models for producing good performance: the fund does not have a traditional management and performance fee structure, but instead provides the first 10% of annual simple returns to the fund investors while Burford retains any excess return. Based on our internal modeling, Burford does better with this approach than a traditional “2 and 20” fee structure once its returns exceed approximately 13%. (If the fund produces super-normal returns for this level of risk, which is not expected, a level of sharing with fund investors would kick in.) A range of institutional investors made commitments in the aggregate amount of $300 million. Burford has made a 20%commitment, or a further $60million. The Advantage Fund’s investment period runs until December 24, 2024, with a multi-year harvest period thereafter under an American waterfall. Christopher Bogart, Burford Capital’s chief executive officer, commented: “Burford is still scratching the surface of the legal finance market. As we continue to respond to our clients’ needs, we have found unmet demand for products in the middle range where litigation risk remains but where the risk is anticipated to be lower for structural or other reasons. In response to this demand, we have created the Advantage Fund to match client demand with institutional investors seeking exposure to the uncorrelated cash flows of legal finance at a lower risk of loss with commensurate returns.” About Burford Capital Burford Capital is the leading global finance and asset management firm focused on law. Its businesses include litigation finance and risk management, asset recovery and a wide range of legal finance and advisory activities. Burford is publicly traded on theNew 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 principal offices in New York, London, Chicago, Washington, DC, Singapore, Sydney and Hong Kong. For more information, please visit www.burfordcapital.com.

Burford Capital Limited, the leading global finance and asset management firm focused on law, today announces its financial results for the year ended December 31, 2021.(1) The Burford Capital 2021 Annual Report, including financial statements (the “2021 Annual Report”), is available at the following link: http://www.rns-pdf.londonstockexchange.com/rns/4070G_1-2022-3-29.pdf or at Burford’s website www.burfordcapital.com/shareholders. In addition, a new financial data supplement, as well as Burford’s inaugural Sustainability Report for 2021, are available on our website at the same URL. Hugh Steven Wilson, Chairman of Burford Capital, commented: “Burford turned in an excellent 2021. This may seem odd to say as we report the first loss in our history, but that is a matter of timing. We wrote significant new core legal finance business in 2021. Even in an era of slower case progress,wegeneratedsignificantlymore cash thanneeded tocover allofour expenses. Burford ended the year with substantial liquidity and strong access to capital, and we recently announced our latest $360 million private fund.” Christopher Bogart, Chief Executive Officer of Burford Capital, commented: “We are delighted with our strong new business performance in 2021. To write more than $1 billion of new commitments during a pandemic is a significant achievement. We deployed more capital than ever before from our balance sheet into assets with the potential to generate our highest returns and profits, auguring favorably for future capital provision income. Though it was a slower year for realized gains, contributing toour 2021 loss, there were few adverse developments to causeeither realized or unrealized losses and the portfolio remains well positioned. The slow pace we are experiencing is a timing issue, not one affectingour viewofthe ultimaterealizable value of theportfolio andits potential tocreatesignificant shareholder value, and no client has discontinued a single matter due to these delays. We are optimistic about the portfolio’s future potential.” 2021 highlights New business

• Record-breaking new business2, with Group-wide new commitments of $1.1 billion (2020: $758 million) and deployments of $841 million (2020: $595 million)

o Burford-only capital provision-direct new commitments of$649million(2020:$335million); the 2021 amount includes $63 million of new commitments warehoused for our funds; excluding those warehoused deals, new commitments were $586 million o Perhaps most significantly for potential future shareholder benefit, Burford-only capital provision-direct deployments, representing our assets capable of generating our highest balance sheet returns and profits, doubled to $447 million (2020: $225 million) Portfolio and balance sheet

• Consolidated portfolio grew to $4.4 billion at December 31, 2021 (December 31, 2020: $3.8 billion)

o Group-wide portfolio grew to $5.1 billion (December 31, 2020: $4.5 billion), driven by new business growth

• Cumulative return on invested capital from Burford-only capital provision-direct assets increased to 93% (December 31, 2020: 92%) with an IRR of 30% (December 31, 2020: 30%)
• Internal model update at December 31, 2021 suggests core legal finance portfolio excluding YPF-related assets couldgenerate$3.8 billioninBurford-only realizations, $2.2billioninrealized gains and $400 million in asset management performance fee income (June 30, 2021: $3.4 billion in realizations, $2 billion in realized gains and $360 million in asset management performance fee income)3
• Burford-only liquidity of $315 million at year end (December 31, 2020: $336 million)

Income

• Total income of $152 million (2020: $359 million), including capital provision income of $128 million (2020: $340 million), reflecting slow case progress, in part due to Covid-linked disruption o Burford-only capital provision-direct net realized gains of $128 million (2020: $180 million) o Burford-only capital provision-direct realized losses of $9 million represented a loss rate of

0.8% (2020: $20 million; 2.2%)

• Income from operations of $6 million (2020: $239 million), with decrease from 2020 due mainly to lower capital provision income and higher operating expenses, including legacy asset recovery charges
• Net loss attributable to ordinary shares of $72 million (2020: net income attributable to ordinary share of $165 million), within previously disclosed expected range of $70 million to $80 million o Net loss per diluted share of $0.33 (2020: net income per diluted share of $0.75)

Capital

• Total shareholders’ equity attributable to Burford Capital of $1.6 billion at December 31, 2021 (December 31, 2020: $1.7 billion)

o Burford-only total shareholders’ equity of $7.08 per share at December 31, 2021 (December 31, 2020: $7.59 per share) o Total tangible shareholders’ equity of $6.47 per share (December 31, 2020: $6.98 per share) • Declared final 2021 dividend of 6.25¢ per share payable on June 17, 2022, subject to shareholder approval at the annual general meeting to be held on May 18, 2022, to shareholders of record on May 27, 2022, with an ex-dividend date of May 26, 2022; total annual dividend of 12.5c per share -- (1) All figures in this announcement are audited and presented on a consolidated basis in accordance with the generally accepted accounting principles in the United States (“US GAAP”), unless otherwise stated. Definitions, reconciliations and information additional to those set forth in this announcement are available on the Burford Capital website and in the 2021 Annual Report. 2 Burford-only new commitments for 2021 include approximately $63 million of interests in assets that were warehoused for our funds at December 31, 2021, including a $13 million asset warehoused for Burford Opportunity Fund C LP and a $50 million asset warehoused for Burford Advantage Master Fund LP (the “Advantage Fund”), which will be reflected as a capital provision-indirect asset post-transfer. New commitments reflect the allocation in place at December 31, 2021, and does not reflect the intended transfer to other funds, which occurred or is expected to occur in early 2022. Excluding the warehoused commitments, Burford-only new commitments in 2021 for capital provision-direct were $586 million. Of the $50 million new commitment warehoused for the Advantage Fund, the Burford-only portion of this capital provision-indirect asset is expected to be $8 million. Total Burford-only new commitments to capital provision assets in 2021, post-intended transfers, were $594 million. 3 Data based on calculations derived from our internal modeling of individual matters and our portfolio as a whole. This data is not a forecast of future results, and past performance is not a guide to future performance. The inherent volatility and unpredictability of legal finance assets precludes forecasting and limits the predictive nature of our internal modeling. Further, the inherent nature of probabilistic modeling is that actual results will differ from the modeled results, and such differences could be material. The data based on calculations derived from our internal modeling is for informational purposes only and is not intended to be a profit forecast or be relied upon as a guide to future performance. See sections titled “Forward-looking statements” and “Risk Factors” in our Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2021 filed with the US Securities and Exchange Commission on March 29, 2022.

LITFINCON’s inaugural conference kicked off last week at the Post Oak Hotel in Houston, Texas, with attendees flying in from all over the globe. Guests had a front-row seat to several thought-provoking conversations about the growing asset class from a variety of industry experts.

The LITFINCON event featured a variety of timely and insightful panel discussions. Below are some key takeaways from the two-day conference:

Day 1 highlighted current trends, the state of the industry, best strategies when seeking litigation finance, and the relationship between corporate legal departments and litigation finance.

The day kicked off with the “Views From The Judiciary On All Things Litigation Finance” panel, which was certainly a crowd favorite. Three distinguished judges shared their insights: The Honorable Charles R. Eskridge, III, of the United States District Court for the Southern District Court of Texas, The Honorable Andrew M. Edison, of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, and The Honorable Lauren Reeder of the 234th Judicial District, Harris County. They offered their unique views, as only active judges can, on a variety of issues affecting litigators, funders, and plaintiffs.

Day 2 highlighted what investors should know about this asset class, when and how to use a broker when looking for funding, technology trends in the legal field, and expert insights on fund formation. Day 2's lunch break was something special, as it featured Chief Comedic Officer of Making Lawyers Laugh, LLC Sheng Weng, who most recently was seen touring with Ali Wong and was a featured stand-up on HBO’s “2 Dope Queens” special. Sheng also wrote for the ABC show “Fresh Off the Boat.” He kept guests entertained and roaring with laughter - a unique addition to the conference agenda.

Guests enjoyed rare in-person networking opportunities, and the opportunity to establish new business relationships. The attendee list included industry-leading firms, such as: Omni Bridgeway, Yieldstreet, Liti Capital, Law Finance Group, Polsinelli, Schulte Roth & Zabel, CAC Speciality, Parker Poe, 4 Rivers Legal, Critchfield, Critchfield & Johnston, Roche Freedman, Women of Litigation Finance (WOLF), Global Litigation Consultants, D. E. Shaw & Co., Arran Capital, Law Office of Philip A. Reale, Dunning Rievman, and Kerberos Capital Management.

Overall, attendees were delighted by how the event turned out. We received some sparkling reviews, a smattering of which is offered for you here:

“LITFINCON was a very positive experience. The range of speakers and panelists was impressive and a great deal of ground relating to the current trends in the industry was covered. The attendees were a good representation of the main industry players, namely funders, attorneys and advisors/brokers. Texas is still a relatively nascent third-party funding market and there are without doubt some exciting opportunities there, particularly in the energy and IP sectors. Siltstone did a great job in setting this up and I am already looking forward to the 2023 renewal!”

• Peter Petyt (CEO and Co‑Founder, 4 Rivers)

“It was a pleasure to discuss how corporate legal departments can utilize litigation funding at the inaugural LITFINCON. The diversity of viewpoints and experiences of my distinguished co-panelists really contributed to a candid, free-flowing discussion of what more can be done to acclimate corporate legal departments to the exciting possibilities offered by litigation finance.”

• Gaston Kroub (Partner, Markman Advisors)

"The litigation finance industry is growing rapidly, which makes networking at events like LITFINCON both important and exciting. We are building something together. It is particularly important that we share best practices and that we find ways to communicate those to stakeholders who may not be knowledgeable about them, such as litigation clients and members of the judiciary. LITFINCON did a great job of convening a diverse group and sharing that information.

I particularly enjoyed the “Crypto” panel, “How Will Blockchain, Cryptocurrency, And Other Technological Innovations Impact Litigation and the Legal Field.” It is nice to attend a conference that offers new information and perspectives."

• Lauren Harrison (Vice President/Investment Counselor, Law Finance Group)

According to Siltstone Capital, the organizer of the event, LITFINCON was such a rousing success that the second installation is already being planned.

“Our entire Siltstone Capital team was humbled to host industry leaders at our inaugural LITFINCON. LITFINCON attracted a global array of speakers and attendees to help promote best practices for the growing and still malleable field of legal private credit. Hosting the conference in Houston, Texas also helped advance the legal private credit field to one of the biggest legal markets in the country. We can’t wait to host LITFINCON II in March 2023.”

• Mani Walia (Managing Director & General Counsel, Siltstone Capital)

“The inaugural LITFINCON was a tremendous success. It received rave reviews. I want to thank all the sponsors, panelists, and attendees, who came in from all over the world – London, Geneva, New York, Miami, San Francisco, and Austin. LITFINCON highlighted the growing field of litigation finance and the importance of Texas as a hub that unites all participants in the legal field. Siltstone Capital is excited about continuing the momentum and advancing the litigation finance field by hosting LITFINCON II in March 2023. We expect the event to be two to three times bigger!”

• Robert Le (Founder & Managing Partner, Siltstone Capital)

We are equally excited for the 2023 version, and look forward to bringing you a recap of that event next year as well!

This week marks the sixth anniversary of Terry Bollea (AKA professional wrestler Hulk Hogan) suing Gawker media for publishing a sex tape of him with a married woman. The suit made national news not just for its salacious nature—but because of the questions it raised regarding privacy versus journalistic freedom. Once news emerged that billionaire and PayPal co-founder Peter Thiel was funding Hogan’s claim, the case became even more sensational. In this piece, we’ll take a look at exactly what happened in the case, and how it impacted (or hasn’t impacted) Litigation Finance. The Facts of the Case In 2007, Gawker, a website known for celebrity scandals and salacious content, published a piece with the headline: “Peter Thiel is totally gay, people.” Was this newsworthy? Did the piece have journalistic integrity? Reasonable people can disagree. Peter Thiel is in fact gay, which means the truth of the article protected Gawker from a libel suit. In 2009, an outed Thiel gave an interview in which he called Gawker ‘destructive,’ even as he acknowledged that the site wasn’t focused on ruining him personally. Thiel also speculated that Gawker maintained a disdainful attitude toward Big Tech, and may be focusing on punishing industry leaders as a result. Fast forward to 2012, when Gawker published a lewd video featuring wrestler Hulk Hogan (AKA Terry Bollea) having sex with Heather Clem—wife of radio personality “Bubba the Love Sponge.” This led to Bollea suing the media outlet for infringement of rights of publicity, invasion of privacy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Bollea was represented by famed Los Angeles attorney Charles Harder. The published video, which Bollea claims was recorded without his knowledge or consent, contained a 2-minute section of a 30+ minute video—ten seconds of which included explicit sex acts. In 2016, Forbes magazine revealed that it was indeed Peter Thiel who was bankrolling Bollea’s case against Gawker. Speculation soared over what was viewed by many as Thiel’s revenge against Gawker for outing him. Did he want to ruin the media company, or purchase it, or simply malign the company that caused him personal and professional anguish? Thiel maintained that his involvement was philanthropic at heart, and meant to protect people from being bullied by unscrupulous media outlets. If anything, the lawsuit was meant to deter Gawker from intentionally releasing damaging content that lacked legitimate news value. Gawker founder Nick Denton, who was named personally in Bollea’s claim, made a statement about Thiel’s involvement in the case: “Just because Peter Thiel is a Silicon Valley Billionaire, his opinion does not trump our millions of readers who know us for routinely driving big news stories.” Also in 2016, a jury awarded Bollea compensatory damages of $115 million, plus punitive damages of $25 million—finding Gawker liable. A few months later, Gawker filed Chapter 11 bankruptcy, and began looking for a buyer. Several media outlets owned by Gawker were sold. By November 2016, Gawker and Bollea reached a settlement of $31 million. Today, Gawker’s flagship gossip site is still active. Gawker media sold off several of its prominent sites including Gizmodo, Jezebel, Deadspin, and io9. The LF Connection The case itself was of particular interest in and around the Litigation Finance community. Opponents of third-party legal funding asserted that Thiel’s actions in the case laid out an effective blueprint for the very wealthy to bankroll frivolous, but eye-catching cases. Billionaires could, some posited, use their wealth and legal connections to target specific companies, forcing them into bankruptcy. This speculation took place alongside the typical accusations that third-party litigation funding could clog court dockets with meritless actions meant to be quick paydays for funders and their clients. For example, Peter Sheer, a First Amendment expert, suggested that Thiel and others might abuse the power of third-party legal funding to intimidate media outlets. According to Sheer: “Winning is the ultimate chilling effect, but if you can’t win the case, you at least want the editors to think twice before writing another critical story about you.” To the keen-eyed observer though, it’s clear that Peter Thiel neither incited this case, nor had any real control over its outcome. Bollea initiated the case before Thiel’s involvement. At the time the case was decided, the jury was unaware that Bollea had a benefactor. And since the jury ruled in favor of Bollea, not Gawker, it’s clear that the case had merit. Thiel was always adamant that funding Bollea’s case (to the tune of $10 million) was about deterrence, not revenge. He explains that he wanted to “fight back” against Gawker’s practice of damaging reputations and bullying those with no means to pursue a claim to conclusion. As Thiel explains, “...even someone like Terry Bollea, who is a millionaire and famous and a successful person didn’t quite have the resources to do this alone.” While one could view Thiel’s actions as being contradictory to the principles of free speech—he disagrees. In fact, Thiel has donated to free speech defenders like the Committee to Protect Journalists. Thiel maintains that there is a profound difference between journalism in the public interest, and the type of media Gawker traffics in. That’s why he decided to take action. Thiel told the New York Times, “It’s less about revenge and more about specific deterrence. I saw Gawker pioneer a unique and incredibly damaging way of getting attention by bullying people even when there was no connection with the public interest.” Now, six years after the case has concluded—what have we learned? We haven’t seen a rash of billionaires funding cases, frivolous or not, with the intention of bringing down specific companies. That’s not to say billionaires aren’t financing claims the way Thiel did, only that they aren’t doing so publicly. Unlike traditional litigation funders, Thiel did not stand to make any money from Bollea’s lawsuit. Technically, Thiel should still be considered the litigation funder, though his term sheet wouldn’t be one most funders would want to imitate. The Gawker case has not led to a slew of frivolous, funded claim. Among other reasons, it simply doesn’t make financial sense to invest in a case lacking in merit. Bollea’s accusations against Gawker were affirmed by the jury, which resulted in a large award. So this claim was meritorious, even if Thiel’s motivation for funding the claim were not ROI-based. Media outlets are not cowering en masse over fears of punitive lawsuits from billionaires. That was much ado about nothing. Holding media outlets accountable for what they print (and occasionally, their motivations for doing so) is a vital and essential part of the free press. Free speech is not freedom to print anything—even something as personal as a sex tape—merely as an attention-getting device. Final Takeaways Can a lawsuit fall under the purview of Free Speech? Thiel believes so, and many others agree. This case addressed questions of privacy, free speech, and litigation funding. The end results demonstrated that we are all entitled to some element of privacy—even the celebrities among us. The Gawker case also affirmed that litigation funding still serves the interests of justice by enhancing the ability of claimants to bring lawsuits when they are wronged. The takeaway here should be that Peter Thiel afforded Hulk Hogan access to justice. Of course, when a billionaire backs a professional wrestler against a media company, sometimes the moral of the story can get lost beneath the headlines.

The following article was contributed by Valerie Blacker and Jon Na, of Piper Alderman. Applicants often confront the proposition, which respondents typically use in their defense, that terms in consumer contracts will effectively exclude or restrict the claims that have been brought. The High Court of Australia recently weighed in on this issue, deciding that a mortgage contained an enforceable promise by the borrowers not to raise a statutory limitation defense in relation to a claim by the lenders, which was commenced out of time. Price v Spoor [2021] HCA 20 In a slight twist to the typical scenario, the lenders were the plaintiffs who brought recovery proceedings after the expiry of the period stipulated in Queensland’s Limitation of Actions Act 1974. The borrowers argued no monies were owed because the claim was well and truly statute barred. Proceedings should have been brought by 2011, but the lender did not file a claim until 2017. In reply, the lender relied on this clause in the contract: “The Mortgagor covenants with the Mortgage[e] that the provisions of all statutes now or hereafter in force whereby or in consequence whereof any o[r] all of the powers rights and remedies of the Mortgagee and the obligations of the Mortgagor hereunder may be curtailed, suspended, postponed, defeated or extinguished shall not apply hereto and are expressly excluded insofar as this can lawfully be done.” The effect of which was said to be a promise not to take the limitation point. The lender’s argument failed at first instance (before Dalton J) but was overturned on appeal (by Gotterson JA on behalf of Sofronoff P and Morrison JA) and then ultimately vindicated by the High Court (Kiefel CJ and Edelman J, with whom Gageler, Gordon and Steward JJ agreed). The public policy principle Part of their Honours’ reasoning was that what is conferred by a limitations statute is a right on a defendant to plead as a defense the expiry of a limitation period. A party may contract for consideration not to exercise that right, or to waive it, as a defendant. That is not contrary to public policy. This, in our view, is akin to agreements frequently entered between prospective parties to a litigation to toll a limitation period (suspend time running) for an agreed amount of time. That can be contrasted with a clause in an agreement that imposes a three- year time limit instead of six, for bringing a claim for misleading and deceptive conduct under the Australian Consumer Law.[1] Clauses of that kind are unenforceable based on a well-established principle that such clauses impermissibly seek to restrict a party’s recourse to his or her statutory rights and remedies, contrary to law and public policy. The “public policy principle” was first identified by the Full Court of the Federal Court in Henjo Investments Pty Ltd v Collins Marrickville Pty Ltd (No 1) (1988) 39 FCR 546. Henjo has been referred to and applied in numerous cases since, and cited with approval in the High Court.[2] This is not to say that contractual limitations can never be effective in limited circumstances - this much was shown in Price v Spoor. The question of whether commercial parties to a contract can negotiate and agree on temporal or monetary limits while not completely excluding the statutory remedies for misleading and deceptive conduct claims under section 18 of the ACL remains debatable[3]  - but those specific circumstances do not arise here. About the Authors: Valerie Blacker is a commercial litigator focusing on funded litigation. Valerie has been with Piper Alderman Lawyers for over 12 years. With a background in class actions, Valerie also prosecutes funded commercial litigation claims. She is responsible for a number of high value, multi-party disputes for the firm’s major clients. Jon Na is a litigation and dispute resolution lawyer at Piper Alderman with a primary focus on corporate and commercial disputes. Jon is involved in a number of large, complex matters in jurisdictions across Australia. For queries or comments in relation to this article please contact Kat Gieras | T: +61 7 3220 7765 | E:  kgieras@piperalderman.com.au -- [1] For example in Brighton Australia Pty Ltd v Multiplex Constructions Pty Ltd [2018] VSC 246 [2] For example in IOOF Australia Trustees (NSW) Ltd v Tantipech [1998] FCA 924 at 479-80; Scarborough v Klich [2001] NSWCA 436 at [74]; MBF Investments Pty Ltd v Nolan [2011] VSCA 114 at [217]; JJMR Pty Ltd v LG International Corp [2003] QCA 519 at [10]; JM & PM Holdings Pty Ltd v Snap-on Tools (Australia) Pty Ltd [2015] NSWCA 347 at [55]; Burke v LFOT Pty Ltd [2002] HCA 17 at [143]. [3] For example in G&S Engineering Services Pty Ltd v Mach Energy Australia Pty Ltd (No 3) [2020] NSWSC 1721.