Trending Now
Case Developments Commercial

Disclosure in the Spotlight for Patent Cases with Third-Party Funding

The topic of disclosure in litigation where there is the presence of third-party funding has been a hot topic in several jurisdictions, with defendants strongly arguing that there needs to be an increased level of transparency when it comes to litigation funding.

In a recent development, outlined in The National Law Review, a judge in the District of Delaware has ruled that parties in patent litigation cases must comply with enhanced Rule 7.1 disclosures, specifically those required around funding arrangements. Chief Judge Connolly, in the case of Longbeam Technologies v. Amazon.com, stated concerns around the plaintiff’s lack of disclosure for its third-party funding and stayed the case to allow for the defendant to pursue discovery on Longbeam’s litigation funding.

This latest example of a court mandating further disclosure around third-party funding agreements is unlikely to be the last, and as the use of litigation funding increases around the globe, both funders and litigants should keep a close eye on whether courts are mandating a heightened degree of transparency.

Case Developments

View All
Case Developments Commercial

Montero Agrees to Distribution of US$27 Million Settlement from Tanzania

By Harry Moran |

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:

  • First payment: US$12,000,000 received on November 20, 2024, and distributed between Montero and Omni Bridgeway (Canada), the Company’s litigation funder.
  • Second payment: US$8,000,000 due by January 31, 2025, to be distributed to Montero and to pay all legal fees.
  • Third payment: US$7,000,000 due by February 28, 2025, to be distributed entirely to Montero.

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.

Case Developments Commercial

CAT Finds in Favour of Professor Andreas Stephan in Amazon Claims

By Harry Moran |

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 in a carriage dispute between two claims both targeting Amazon for allegations of anticompetitive behaviour.

A press release from Geradin Partners highlights the judgment from the CAT in a carriage dispute, which saw the Tribunal find in favour of Professor Andreas Stephan in collective proceedings being brought against Amazon. The carriage dispute related to the parallel claims brought by Professor Stephan and by the British Independent Retailers Association (BIRA), over allegations that Amazon engaged in anticompetitive practices that harmed third-party sellers on the online marketplace. Professor Stephan’s proceedings had instructed Geradin Partners and secured litigation funding from Innsworth, whilst BIRA had instructed Willkie Farr & Gallagher and agreed to funding from Litigation Capital Management (LCM).

In its ruling, the CAT found that whilst BIRA had an advantage in its suitability to act as the class representative, “this was clearly outweighed by the factors which favour Prof Stephan”, which it identified as “the scope of the claims and the expert methodology.” Although the CAT highlighted that the breadth of Professor Stephan’s claims “would no doubt enlarge the scope of a trial and therefore make it more complicated”, the ruling cited case law in emphasising that his claims “more consistent with the goals of access to justice by capturing more viable claims”.

The published judgment also shed light on the details of the funding arrangements in the claims. Professor Stephan’s litigation funding agreement (LFA) with Innsworth committed a maximum of £32.9 million to cover costs and expenses, with an additional commitment “to pay adverse costs of £5 million until the grant or refusal of a CPO and of £20 million thereafter.” As to the returns outlined in the funding agreement, Professor Stephan’s LFA with Innsworth “provides for a total multiple rising from 4 up to 10 (if the recovery is after the commencement of the substantive trial).” The CAT noted that the returns from Professor Stephan’s LFA were higher than for the funder in the BIRA claim, in the conclusion of its examination the Tribunal noted that “the funding arrangements of the two applications are a neutral factor in choosing between them.”

The CAT’s full judgment in the carriage dispute can be read here.

Additional analysis of the CAT’s ruling and its implications for future carriage disputes for funded proceedings can be found in a LinkedIn post from Matthew Lo, director at Exton Advisors.

Case Developments Commercial

Judge Preska Orders Argentina to Comply with Burford Discovery Request

By Harry Moran |

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 judge has ordered the Argentine government to provide additional information about the country’s financial assets to the funder as part of its efforts to collect on the award.

An article in the Buenos Aires Herald provides an update on the ongoing fight to recover the $16.1 billion award in the YPF lawsuit, as a New York judge ordered Argentina to comply with a discovery request for information around the Argentine Central Bank’s gold reserves. The order handed down by Judge Loretta Preska followed the request made by Burford Capital in October of last year, with the litigation funder citing media reports that Argentina’s Central Bank had moved a portion of its gold reserves overseas.

Lawyers for Argentina’s government had submitted a letter last week arguing against the discovery request on the grounds that the Argentine Republic and Central Bank are legally separate entities, and that any such gold reserves have “special protection from execution under [United States’ Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act] and UK law.” Responding to these arguments in her order, Judge Preska stated plainly that “regardless of whether the gold reserves are held by [the Central Bank], the Republic shall produce its own documents concerning the reserves.”

Judge Preska also ordered the Argentine government to provide additional information concerning its SWIFT data on its overseas accounts and for documents from another lawsuit brought against the Republic, saying that all this information could “lead to other executable assets.”

The topic of disclosure in litigation where there is the presence of third-party funding has been a hot topic in several jurisdictions, with defendants strongly arguing that there needs to be an increased level of transparency when it comes to litigation funding.

In a recent development, outlined in The National Law Review, a judge in the District of Delaware has ruled that parties in patent litigation cases must comply with enhanced Rule 7.1 disclosures, specifically those required around funding arrangements. Chief Judge Connolly, in the case of Longbeam Technologies v. Amazon.com, stated concerns around the plaintiff’s lack of disclosure for its third-party funding and stayed the case to allow for the defendant to pursue discovery on Longbeam’s litigation funding.

This latest example of a court mandating further disclosure around third-party funding agreements is unlikely to be the last, and as the use of litigation funding increases around the globe, both funders and litigants should keep a close eye on whether courts are mandating a heightened degree of transparency.