Trending Now
Case Developments Commercial

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.

Case Developments

View All
Case Developments Commercial

Computer Weekly Provides In-Depth History of Post Office Horizon Inquiry

By Harry Moran |

The Post Office Horizon IT scandal represented not only one of the most significant cases of institutional malpractice and miscarriage of justice in British history, but also catapulted the use of litigation funding into the public spotlight.

An article in Computer Weekly provides an in-depth summary of the statutory public inquiry into the Post Office Horizon IT scandal, giving readers a detailed account of all the key revelations that emerged across the last three years of the inquiry’s work. The feature breaks down these revelations on a chronological basis, starting in May 2022 with ‘phase one’ of the inquiry’s hearings and going all the way through to ‘phase seven’ in September 2024.

The feature explains how each of these seven phases gathered evidence on different aspects of the scandal, beginning in 2022 with phase one hearing testimonies from the victims, and the phase two investigation into the Horizon IT system itself.

Phase three saw the examination of the Horizon system over the subsequent year, whilst phase four switched focus to assess the activities of lawyers and investigators who participated in the subpostmasters’ prosecutions. Finally, the feature guides us through the inquiry’s work this year, with phases five and six putting the behaviour of directors, politicians and civil servants in the spotlight, before concluding with phase seven that took a broader look at the Post Office’s present and future.

Within the feature, readers can find links to individual articles that provide deep dives into each of these individual phases, cataloguing the most important pieces of evidence unearthed by the inquiry’s hearings. 

Case Developments Commercial

Montero Reaches $27M Settlement with Tanzania in Dispute Funded by Omni Bridgeway

By Harry Moran |

The funding of arbitration proceedings brought by mining, exploration and development companies against nation states continues to be a lucrative area for litigation funders, as the announcement of another settlement in one such dispute demonstrates.

A press release from Montero Mining and Exploration Ltd. reveals that the company has reached a $27 million settlement with the government of Tanzania to end the dispute over the expropriation of Montero’s Wigu Hill rare earth element project. The agreement will see the total settlement sum paid out in three tranches over the next three months, with the first payment of $12 million having already been received. Montero noted that whilst the $27 million settlement only represents 39% of the original claim for $70 million, this agreement “obviates the need for a costly and time-consuming hearing, the risk of an adverse award, enforcement efforts, and finally concludes a near 7-year dispute.’

Montero’s arbitration proceedings against the Tanzanian government had been supported via a funding agreement with Omni Bridgeway (Canada), with the litigation funder set to receive an undisclosed return on its investment from the settlement agreement. Whilst Omni Bridgeway’s share of the settlement has not been disclosed, Montero’s announcement did reveal that the funder would receive a distribution from both the first payment and from the second payment of $8 million that is due to be received on or before 31 January 2025. Montero also clarified that “the net amount of the award after repayment to the funder and legal expenses cannot be estimated with certainty and no assurances can be made.”

Montero’s president and CEO, Dr Tony Harwood, provided the following comment on the settlement: ““I am pleased Montero was able to reach an amicable settlement with the government of Tanzania to bring a mutually beneficial end to this dispute. This resolution allows both parties to move forward, and we wish Tanzania every success in attracting new mining investment. I would like to thank our shareholders, board, management, and our legal and technical teams, for their valuable contribution to this outcome.”

Case Developments Commercial

Which? Files £3 Billion Cloud Claim Against Apple, Funded by LCM

By Harry Moran |

The growth of multinational technology corporations has provided years of product innovation and a mass availability of affordable consumer electronics. However, the resulting monopolies that have risen to dominate these markets have also created space for the potential for anti-competitive behaviour that harms consumers. In this environment, it is unsurprising we are seeing more and more claims being brought against these tech giants, with the legal proceedings supported by third-party litigation funders.

An article in TechCrunch covers the announcement of a new collective action being brought against Apple by the UK consumer rights group Which?, representing up to 40 million consumers over allegations that Apple breached competition law by overcharging users of the iCloud service. The opt-out proceedings, valued at approximately £3 billion, claims that Apple abused its monopoly position to favour iCloud over competing cloud storage providers and locking in customers to the iCloud services, thereby preventing them from switching to a competitor and enabling Apple to charge increasingly higher fees.

The application for certification was filed with the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) on 8 November 2024, with the claim seeking to represent any UK consumer who used an iOS device or iCloud services from 1 October 2025 onwards. This nine year time period is particularly relevant as it follows the introduction of the Consumer Rights Act from that date. The claims is being funded by Litigation Capital Management (LCM), with litigation risk insurance having been secured to cover Apple’s legal costs if the claim is not successful

More information about the collective proceedings can be found on the Cloud Claim website.

In response to this new legal action being brought, Apple spokesperson Tom Parker provided the following statement: “Apple believes in providing our customers with choices. Our users are not required to use iCloud, and many rely on a wide range of third-party alternatives for data storage. In addition, we work hard to make data transfer as easy as possible — whether its to iCloud or another service. We reject any suggestion that our iCloud practices are anticompetitive and will vigorously defend against any legal claim otherwise.”