Trending Now
Case Developments Commercial

Parties in Burford-Funded Argentina Claim Remain Far Apart on Payout Amount 

August 3, 2023

Parties in Burford-Funded Argentina Claim Remain Far Apart on Payout Amount 

Cases with a prolonged duration and timelines that span nearly a decade are not uncommon for those in the business of litigation finance. However, even in cases where claimants receive a favourable judgement, there is always the issue of determining the size of the award, which further prolongs these lawsuits. A recent article by Bloomberg Law provides an update on the three-day trial in the case of Petersen Energia Inversora, S.A.U. v. Argentine Republic, which ended with the opposing parties still $6.5 billion apart on what they think the proposed payout should be. The case, which dates back to 2015, was brought on behalf of YPF SA shareholders, who argued that the Argentine government failed to offer a required payout after it re-nationalized the oil company in 2012.  As LFJ previously reported, Judge Loretta A. Preska ruled that Argentina was liable for the shareholders’ losses in a summary judgement in March of this year. During last month’s trial in the Southern District of New York, the shareholders argued that the payout could amount to as much as $16 billion, whilst Argentina provided a much lower estimate of $9.5 billion. The significant distance between the two amounts revolved around a number of key issues, including the date that the government took back control of YPF, with the two parties specifying dates that are three weeks apart.  The outcome of the trial has particular significance for Burford Capital who invested $16.6 million in the litigation, and following the March judgement, had stated that the final award could total in excess of $7.5 billion. This figure is notably lower than Argentina’s proposed payout. However, Judge Preska provided no estimate of when she might deliver a ruling on the payout and attorneys for the Argentine government have already made clear that they will appeal the award, regardless of the Judge’s ruling.
Secure Your Funding Below
Secure Your Funding Sidebar

Case Developments

View All
Case Developments Commercial

Home Office-Funded Class Action Against Motorola Gets Green Light

By John Freund |

In a significant development for UK collective actions, the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) has granted a Collective Proceedings Order (CPO) in the landmark case Spottiswoode v Airwave Solutions & Motorola. The case—brought by Clare Spottiswoode CBE—accuses Motorola of abusing its dominant position in the UK's emergency services network by charging excessive prices through its Airwave network, which the Home Office claims resulted in £1.1 billion in overcharges to UK taxpayers.

According to iclg, the class action is being funded by the UK Home Office itself, which is also the complainant in an associated CMA enforcement action. In its judgment, the CAT concluded that Spottiswoode is an appropriate class representative, and that the claim—which covers a proposed class of over 100,000 public service bodies—is suitable for collective proceedings. The case will proceed on an opt-out basis for UK entities, with opt-in available for overseas claimants.

The Tribunal emphasized that funding by a government department does not compromise the independence of the class representative, and that the Home Office’s funding arrangement complies with legal and procedural requirements. Notably, the judgment paves the way for governmental entities to play a dual role—as both complainant and funder—in future competition-based collective actions.

This case raises fascinating implications for the legal funding industry. It challenges traditional notions of third-party funders and opens the door to more creative and strategic funding models initiated by government entities themselves, particularly in cases with broad public interest and regulatory overlap.

Case Developments Commercial

UK Supreme Court Upholds Key Class Action Win for Funders in Apple Case

By John Freund |

The UK Supreme Court has declined to hear Apple’s appeal in Apple Inc and others v Gutmann, leaving intact a Court of Appeal decision that significantly strengthens the position of litigation funders in collective proceedings before the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT).

An article in Law Gazette reports that the Supreme Court refused Apple’s petition on the grounds that it did not raise an arguable point of law, effectively endorsing the lower court’s April 2025 decision. That ruling affirmed that litigation funders can be paid directly from damages recovered in a class action before distributions are made to class members. The decision resolved longstanding ambiguity surrounding Sections 47C(3) and (6) of the Competition Act 1998 and Rule 93 of the CAT Rules 2015.

The Court of Appeal held that the CAT has wide discretionary authority to order payments to class representatives for costs, fees, and disbursements, provided such allocations are deemed fair and reasonable under the tribunal’s supervisory jurisdiction. This was a pivotal victory for claimant-side funders, who have long warned that being last in line for recovery—after damages are disbursed—posed unacceptable risk in UK opt-out cases.

Law firm Charles Lyndon, counsel for class representative Justin Gutmann, welcomed the Supreme Court’s decision not to revisit the matter, stating that it brings “welcome certainty” to the evolving collective proceedings regime and affirms the CAT’s broad discretion in addressing complex, end-of-case allocation scenarios.

This decision is expected to have a profound impact on the UK’s competition class action landscape. Funders now have greater confidence in the recoverability of their investments, potentially spurring more funding activity in CAT proceedings. The ruling may also prompt defendants to reconsider their settlement calculus, knowing that funders now enjoy a more secure repayment pathway.

Case Developments Commercial

Elite Colleges Challenge Lawyers’ Litigation Funding in Major Antitrust Case

By John Freund |

Elite U.S. universities embroiled in a high-stakes antitrust class action are now targeting the use of third‑party litigation funding by plaintiffs’ counsel in a bid to derail class certification. At issue is whether a lead firm’s reliance on external financing renders it “inadequate” under class action rules — a novel approach that raises fresh procedural and policy questions.

An article in Reuters notes the the suit alleges that Cornell, Penn, MIT, Georgetown, Notre Dame and others favored wealthy applicants over students needing financial aid, plaintiffs’ counsel (led by Gilbert Litigators & Counselors, or GLC) is facing attacks over transparency and risk allocation. The universities contend that GLC mischaracterized its financial exposure by not fully disclosing its funding arrangements. GLC responds that it only uses outside funding for a portion of its fees (covering 40% of its own, and under 16% of the aggregate) and that no court has previously held that use of funding makes class counsel inadequate. A judge has already found the funding documents “potentially relevant” to the certification motion, underscoring the stakes.

Legal commentators call this a new twist in class litigation — rather than questioning the merits or fairness of funding, defendants are now probing its procedural footprint. The case also dovetails with a broader trend: litigation funders are becoming more visible and controversial, particularly when their support is used by class‑action counsel. Reuters Meanwhile, in adjacent news, law firms are consolidating and AI‑driven tools for plaintiffs’ practices are attracting investor capital — further reshaping the economics of litigation.

This challenge could force courts nationwide to reinterpret adequacy standards in class actions, potentially chilling the use of external funding. It may also provoke funders, defense firms, and plaintiffs to recalibrate disclosure rules and risk-sharing norms across major litigation.