No Talks or Negotiations Between Argentina and Burford over $16B Award
The legal fight between Burford Capital and Argentina over the $16.1 billion award in the case brought by investors of the YPF oil and gas company has continued to demonstrate…

The legal fight between Burford Capital and Argentina over the $16.1 billion award in the case brought by investors of the YPF oil and gas company has continued to demonstrate…
Whilst funded class actions are most commonly seen in prominent legal funding markets such as the UK, US and Australia, we are increasingly seen large scale group claims being brought…
The Banking Royal Commission established by the Australian government uncovered a wide range of misconduct and failing by the country’s financial institutions, with a slew of litigation and class action…
Whilst there is much discussion about what level of disclosure should be required around litigation funding, it is rare that outsiders to a claim can gain insight into the structure…
Whilst litigation funders can provide the financial resources for individuals and companies to gain access to justice, the benefits that this service provides do not shield the industry from criticism;…
For those litigation funders who achieve great success with their investments in meritorious claims, the financial returns can create the foundation for a long-term strategic growth. However, with the inherent…
A decision handed down in the High Court earlier this week has demonstrated the potential value for funders in securing the assignment of a claim, providing the funder with more…
As LFJ reported in December 2024, an Australian class action funded by Litigation Capital Management (LCM) had received an unfavourable ruling in the Federal Court of Australia, with the judge…
The sanctioning of Russian business owners since 2022 has led to a plethora of litigation, as one ongoing case in Florida sees two Russian nationals in a dispute over the…
The funding of arbitration claims brought against nation states represent challenging opportunities for legal funders, with the potential of a large return balanced against the complicated nature and prolonged timelines…
As LFJ reported earlier this week, the news that the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) had approved the £200 million settlement for the Mastercard class action provided a landmark ruling that…
Although Elon Musk’s name has become most prominent in stories about U.S. politics over recent months, in Australia, it Tesla that has attracted the attention of a new lawsuit alleging…
Whilst Australia remains a top jurisdiction for litigation funders looking to support impactful class actions, there is no amount of due diligence or analysis that can guarantee the end result…
As LFJ reported last week, the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) was the venue for one of the most interesting settlement approval hearings in recent memory, as the class representative and…
Whilst the successes of collective proceedings supported by litigation funders are regularly highlighted by the legal funding industry, an ongoing dispute at the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) between a class…
For consumers who were unwittingly deceived by falsely advertised products, a well-funded class action remains one of the few options available for these individuals to seek justice and compensation. Reporting by…
One of the key issues raised around third-party litigation funding for patent disputes, is the level of involvement and control a funder may exert on proceedings, and the potential for…
When it comes to discovery requests over third-party funding in US lawsuits, we are accustomed to seeing these issues arise most commonly in intellectual property and patent litigation. However, a…

Montero Mining and Exploration Ltd. (TSX-V: MON) (“Montero” or the “Company”) announces that it has finalised the distribution of the US$27,000,000 settlement with its litigation funders, Omni Bridgeway (Canada). The settlement amount was agreed with the United Republic of Tanzania (“Tanzania”) in the dispute over the expropriation of Montero’s Wigu Hill rare earth element project (“Wigu Hill”).
The settlement amount of US$27,000,000 is payable over three instalments, and is to be distributed as follows:
After paying funders and legal costs, the net amount due to Montero will be approximately C$20,577,545 (US$14,458,138).
Dr Tony Harwood, President and CEO of Montero commented: “I am pleased Montero successfully achieved an amicable distribution of proceeds of over C$20,000,000. We wish Tanzania success in attracting new mining investments and look forward to receiving the final two payments due within the next 5 weeks. Further notice of payments received will be forthcoming.”
ICSID Arbitration
Montero and Tanzania jointly requested the arbitral tribunal to suspend the ICSID arbitration proceedings after receiving the first payment. Upon receipt of the final payment as scheduled, the parties will formally request the tribunal to discontinue the ICSID arbitration in its entirety.
Distribution of Funds
Montero is considering a return of capital distribution to shareholders. The exact amount is yet to be determined and will be subject to accounting review and board approval. In addition, Montero will retain funds to cover legal, taxation, and administrative expenses, including potential costs for arbitral proceedings, or enforcement actions in the event of delays or non-payment of the second or third instalments. The latter will now be the sole responsibility of Montero. The net amount of the award after deducting payments to the funder and covering legal expenses, cannot be determined with certainty, and no guarantees can be provided. Further announcements will be made in due course.
Disclaimer
The conclusion of the ICSID arbitration and payment of the remaining instalments is conditional on Tanzania’s compliance with the settlement agreement. The agreement does not provide for any security for the benefit of Montero in case Tanzania would not pay any instalment, in which case Montero can either resume the ICSID arbitration or seek enforcement of the settlement agreement.
About Montero
Montero has agreed to a US$27,000,000 settlement amount to end its dispute with the United Republic of Tanzania for the expropriation of the Wigu Hill rare earth element project. The Company is also advancing the Avispa copper-molybdenum project in Chile and is seeking a joint venture partner. Montero’s board of directors and management have an impressive track record of successfully discovering and advancing precious metal and copper projects. Montero trades on the TSX Venture Exchange under the symbol MON and has 50,122,975 shares outstanding.
Whilst last week saw a flurry of activity in the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) as trials began in multiple collective proceedings, this week has seen the Tribunal hand down a ruling…
As we enter yet another year in the story of the $16.1 billion award in the case funded by Burford Capital against the YPF oil and gas company, a US…
When looking for those jurisdiction most amenable to class actions supported by litigation funders, the Netherlands remains at the top of the list, as has been demonstrated once again today…
The Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) has continued to dominate the legal funding headlines this week, as we have already seen two class actions commence at the Tribunal. However, a new…
As LFJ reported yesterday, the start of 2025 has seen a flurry of activity at the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT), with two major class actions backed by litigation funders going…
The influence of multinational technology companies has unsurprisingly made them targets for collective proceedings brought on behalf of consumers and businesses, who allege that their positions of market dominance have…
A new class action in the Federal Court of Australia is targeting General Motors Australia and New Zealand over the alleged sale of Holden vehicles with faulty transmissions. The class…
A class action was recently filed in the Federal Court of Australia, targeting Johnson & Johnson over allegations that a number of its oral cold and flu medications are ineffective…
Emmerson PLC, the mining company focused on the development of the Khemisset potash project in Morocco, has secured $11 million in legal funding for its dispute against the Moroccan government….
As LFJ reported yesterday, funders and law firms alike are looking to the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) as one of the most influential factors for the future of the UK…

A class action was filed on 16 December 2024 on behalf of QNews Pty Ltd and Sydney Times Media Pty Ltd against Google LLC, Google Pte Ltd and Google Australia Pty Ltd (Google).
The class action has been commenced to recover compensation for Australian-domiciled website and app publishers who have suffered financial losses as a result of Google’s misuse of market power in the advertising technology sector. The alleged loss is that publishers would have had significantly higher revenues from selling advertising space, and would have kept greater profits, if not for Google’s misuse of market power.
The class action is being prosecuted by Piper Alderman with funding from Woodsford, which means affected publishers will not pay costs to participate in this class action, nor will they have any financial risk in relation to Google’s costs.
Anyone, or any business, who has owned a website or app and sold advertising space using Google’s ad tech tools can join the action as a group member by registering their details at www.googleadtechaction.com.au. Participation in the action as a group member will be confidential so Google will not become aware of the identity of group members.
The class action is on behalf of all publishers who had websites or apps and sold advertising space using Google’s platforms targeted at Australian consumers, including:
for the period 16 December 2018 to 16 December 2024.
Google’s conduct
Google’s conduct in the ad tech market is under scrutiny in various jurisdictions around the world. In June 2021, the French competition authority concluded that Google had abused its dominant position in the ad tech market. Google did not contest the decision, accepted a fine of €220m and agreed to change its conduct. The UK Competition and Markets Authority, the European Commission, the US Department of Justice and the Canadian Competition Bureau have also commenced investigations into, or legal proceedings regarding, Google’s conduct in ad tech. There are also class actions being prosecuted against Google for its practices in the ad tech market in the UK, EU and Canada.
In Australia, Google’s substantial market power and conduct has been the subject of regulatory investigation and scrutiny by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) which released its report in August 2021. The ACCC found that “Google is the largest supplier of ad tech services across the entire ad tech supply chain: no other provider has the scale or reach across the ad tech supply chain that Google does.” It concluded that “Google’s vertical integration and dominance across the ad tech supply chain, and in related services, have allowed it to engage in leveraging and self-preferencing conduct, which has likely interfered with the competitive process”.
Quotes
Greg Whyte, a partner at Piper Alderman, said:
“This class action is of major importance to publishers, who have suffered as a result of Google’s practices in the ad tech monopoly that it has secured. As is the case in several other 2. jurisdictions around the world, Google will be required to respond to and defend its monopolistic practices which significantly affect competition in the Australian publishing market”.
Charlie Morris, Chief Investment Officer at Woodsford said: “This class action follows numerous other class actions against Google in other jurisdictions regarding its infringement of competition laws in relation to AdTech. This action aims to hold Google to account for its misuse of market power and compensate website and app publishers for the consequences of Google’s misconduct. Working closely with economists, we have determined that Australian website and app publishers have been earning significantly less revenue and profits from advertising than they should have. We aim to right this wrong.”
Class Action representation
The team prosecuting the ad tech class action comprises: