Trending Now
Case Developments Commercial

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

By Harry Moran |
January 28, 2025

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

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.

Secure Your Funding Below
Secure Your Funding Sidebar

About the author

Harry Moran

Harry Moran

Case Developments

View All
Case Developments Commercial

Burford Capital’s $35 M Antitrust Funding Claim Deemed Unsecured

By John Freund |

In a recent ruling, Burford Capital suffered a significant setback when a U.S. bankruptcy court determined that its funding agreement was not secured status.

According to an article from JD Journal, Burford had backed antitrust claims brought by Harvest Sherwood, a food distributor that filed for bankruptcy in May 2025, via a 2022 financing agreement. The capital advance was tied to potential claims worth about US$1.1 billion in damages against meat‑industry defendants.

What mattered most for Burford’s recovery strategy was its effort to treat the agreement as a loan with first‑priority rights. The court, however, ruled the deal lacked essential elements required to create a lien, trust or other secured interest. Instead, the funding was classified as an unsecured claim, meaning Burford now joins the queue of general creditors rather than enjoying priority over secured lenders.

The decision carries major consequences. Unsecured claims typically face a much lower likelihood of full recovery, especially in estates loaded with secured debt. Here, key assets of the bankrupt estate consist of the antitrust actions themselves, and secured creditors such as JPM Chase continue to dominate the repayment waterfall. The ruling also casts a spotlight on how litigation‑funding agreements should be structured and negotiated when bankruptcy risk is present. Funders who assumed they could elevate their status via contractual design may now face greater caution and risk.

Case Developments Commercial

Uber Told £340m Group Claim Must Follow Costs Budgeting Rules

By John Freund |

In a notable ruling, the High Court has directed that a £340 million group action against Uber London Ltd will be subject to costs budgeting, despite the claim’s substantial size. The decision was handed down in the case of White & Ors v Uber London Ltd & Ors, where the total value of the claim far exceeds the £10 million threshold above which costs budgeting is typically not required under the Civil Procedure Rules.

According to Law Gazette, Mrs Justice O’Farrell chose to exercise judicial discretion to apply the budgeting regime. Her decision marks a significant moment for large-scale group litigation in England and Wales, underscoring the court’s growing interest in ensuring proportionality and transparency of legal costs—even in high-value cases.

An article in the Law Society Gazette reports that the ruling means the parties must now submit detailed estimates of incurred and anticipated legal costs, which will be reviewed and approved by the court. This move imposes a degree of cost control typically absent from group claims of this scale and signals a potential shift in how such cases are managed procedurally.

The decision carries important implications for the litigation funding industry. Funders underwriting group claims can no longer assume exemption from cost control measures based on claim size alone. The presence of court-approved cost budgets may impact the funders’ risk analysis and return expectations, potentially reshaping deal terms in high-value group actions. This development could prompt more cautious engagement from funders and a closer examination of litigation strategy in similar collective proceedings moving forward.

Case Developments Commercial

Merricks Steps into Trains Case Amid Funding Tensions

By John Freund |

Veteran solicitor-campaigner Walter Merricks is poised to assume the role of class representative in a major collective action against rail operator Govia Thameslink Railway, following the death of the previous lead claimant. The case — brought under the opt-out regime before the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) — alleges anticompetitive fare charging that harmed passengers traveling without a London Travelcard.

An article in the Law Society Gazette states that Merricks has formally applied to take over from former class representative David Boyle, who passed away earlier this year. The transition raises “a number of complex and difficult issues,” given the opt-out nature of the proceeding and the procedural demands of the UK’s evolving collective redress framework.

The move comes amid broader tensions between Merricks and his former litigation funder, Innsworth Capital. That dispute centers on the earlier £200 million settlement of Merricks’ landmark claim against Mastercard. Though the CAT approved the settlement, Innsworth launched a judicial review and initiated arbitration proceedings to challenge the allocation of proceeds, arguing its entitlement to a larger portion of the award. Merricks has been openly critical of the funder’s conduct, calling its approach an “embarrassment” and warning it could undermine public trust in third-party funding.

For the rail case, Merricks has retained Wilkie Farr & Gallagher as counsel. His application to replace Boyle as class representative is currently before the tribunal and will be considered at a hearing in January 2026.