Trending Now
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.

About the author

Harry Moran

Harry Moran

Case Developments

View All
Case Developments Commercial

Bench Walk to Recoup First Cut of Lupaka’s $65M Peru Award

By John Freund |

Canadian miner Lupaka Gold has landed the sort of out-of-the-blue windfall that keeps arbitration funders in business. An ICSID tribunal has ordered the Republic of Peru to pay the TSX-V-listed junior roughly $65 million—the full compensation Lupaka sought over the 2018 shuttering of its Invicta gold project, plus costs and compound interest dating back nearly six years.

A press release in GlobeNewswire states that Lupaka will not be the first to collect the proceeds. Under its non-recourse financing agreement, the initial distributions flow to Bench Walk Advisors, the New York- and London-based funder that bankrolled the treaty claim and fronted more than US $4 million in arbitration costs. Only after Bench Walk is made whole—and receives its agreed return—will the miner’s shareholders see any cash.

The award exemplifies how litigation finance is reshaping investor-state disputes. Bench Walk assumed the risk that Peru might prevail or drag the process out indefinitely; in exchange it now stands to crystalise a sizeable, near-term return once enforcement begins. Lupaka’s management, for its part, concedes that “a few more hoops” remain before Peru’s treasury wires the money, but the tribunal’s merits ruling removes the biggest hurdle.

The case reinforces third-party funding’s strategic utility for smaller resource companies facing sovereign interference—especially in Latin America’s mining belt, where political risk remains acute. Funders will parse the award’s interest mechanics as a template for quantifying damages over protracted timelines. More broadly, the result helps validate Bench Walk’s aggressive expansion into treaty arbitration and may spur peers to chase similar high-beta opportunities, even as governments and the UN-backed ICSID reform process debate tighter disclosure around funding arrangements.

Case Developments Commercial

Argentina Seeks UK Stay on $16 B YPF Judgment Backed by Burford

By John Freund |

Even as a U.S. court ordered the hand-over of YPF shares, Argentina raced to London’s High Court to stall UK recognition of the same multi-billion award.

An article in Reuters recounts how government counsel told the court that enforcing the U.S. judgment before appellate review would cause no prejudice because “there are no assets here” to seize. The Burford-funded plaintiffs countered that Argentina’s bid is a delay tactic and asked for a £2.0 billion security if any pause is granted, noting interest is compounding at US $2.5 million per day.

The duelling venues highlight Burford’s trans-Atlantic enforcement campaign and the growing strategic sophistication of funders in sovereign disputes. London has become the favoured battleground for enforcing U.S. commercial awards against states, thanks to Section 101 of the 2006 Arbitration Act and the city’s deep asset pool.

For funders, the hearing underscores the need to pursue parallel forums to pressure recalcitrant states—especially when holdings (like YPF shares) sit outside the U.S. A reserved security order could significantly raise Argentina’s cost of delay and signal to other sovereign debtors that London courts will not rubber-stamp tactical pauses. The outcome will be closely watched by hedge funds and litigation financiers eyeing distressed-sovereign opportunities.

Case Developments Commercial

Burford Keeps Control in Turkey Price-Fixing Antitrust Battle

By John Freund |

A federal magistrate in Chicago has handed Burford Capital a fresh victory in its effort to monetise Sysco-assigned antitrust claims against the U.S. turkey industry.

An article in Reuters reports that Judge Sunil Harjani rejected arguments from Tyson Foods, Perdue, Hormel and Butterball that Burford’s affiliate, Carina Ventures, lacked standing or offended public policy by pursuing the case despite never purchasing a single drumstick. Harjani’s opinion emphasised that Congress—not the courts—must decide whether third-party funding is permissible and found no evidence Carina or Burford had distorted the litigation. He also brushed aside a Sysco-centric fairness attack, noting that sophisticated businesses are free to structure their claims as they see fit.

The order is the latest twist in Burford’s multiyear protein-price saga. After investing US $140 million to bankroll Sysco’s chicken, pork and turkey cartel suits, the funder clashed with its client over settlement strategy, ultimately receiving the claims by assignment. With chicken and pork fights largely resolved, the turkey docket is now a bell-wether for whether funders can step directly into plaintiffs’ shoes when contracts allow.

For litigation financiers, Harjani’s ruling reinforces that properly drafted assignments can survive policy challenges, even in food-price cases that attract political scrutiny. The decision also undercuts insurer-driven narratives that funding itself inflates “social inflation.”