Trending Now
Case Developments Commercial

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

By John Freund |

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.

About the author

John Freund

John Freund

View all Posts by John Freund

Case Developments

View All
Case Developments Commercial

Deminor Announces Settlement in Danish OW Bunker Case

By Harry Moran |

An announcement from Deminor Litigation Funding revealed that a settlement has been reached in the OW Bunker action in Demark, which Deminor funded litigation brought by a group of 20 institutional investors against the investment banks Carnegie and Morgan Stanley.

This is part of a wider group of actions originating from OW Bunker’s 2014 bankruptcy, which led to significant financial losses for both company creditors and shareholders who had invested in the company. These other cases were brought against several defendants, including OW Bunker and its former management and Board of Directors, Altor Fund II, and the aforementioned investment banks.

The settlement provides compensation for plaintiffs across the four legal actions, with a total value of approximately 645 million DKK, including legal costs. The settlement agreement requires the parties to ‘waive any further claims against each other relating to OW Bunker’. Deminor’s announcement makes clear that ‘none of the defendants have acknowledged any legal responsibility in the group of linked cases in connection with the settlement.’

Charles Demoulin, Chief Investment Officer of Deminor, said that “the settlement makes it possible for our clients to benefit from a reasonable compensation for their losses”, and that they were advising the client “to accept this solution which represents a better alternative to continuing the litigation with the resulting uncertainties.” Joeri Klein, General Counsel Netherlands and Co-head Investment Recovery of Deminor, said that the settlement had demonstrated that “in Denmark it has now proven to be possible to find a balanced solution to redress investor related claims.”

Case Developments Commercial

Burford German Funding Sued Over Hausfeld Ownership Stake

By Harry Moran |

The ownership or funding of law firms by litigation funders continues to be a hot topic in the world of legal funding, with models such as alternative business structures (ABS) gaining momentum in places like Arizona. However, a complaint filed by a client in Delaware reveals a falling out due to the reverse funding model, where a law firm maintained an ownership stake in the funder.

Reporting by Bloomberg Law covers a new lawsuit brought against Burford German Funding (BGF), an affiliate of Burford Capital, by a client who claims that the funder failed to disclose the fact that BGF was partly owned by the same law firm it nominated to lead the client’s antitrust cases. Financialright Claims GMBH (FRC) alleges that when it negotiated the funding agreement with BGF for its antitrust litigation against the trucks cartel, it had no knowledge “that Hausfeld  was  also  a  part  owner  of  BGF  through  an  entity  called German Litigation Solutions LLC (“GLS”) or that one of the lead German partners at Hausfeld responsible for the firm’s representation of FRC had a personal stake.”

The complaint, filed by FRC in the Delaware Superior Court, explains that as Hausfeld is part-owner of BGF, and the funding agreement “provides for a share of FRC’s recoveries in the Trucks Litigations to flow to FRC’s lawyers”, this constitutes a contingency fee arrangement which are illegal under German law.  FRC had filed a lawsuit against Hausfeld in a German court and then applied for discovery from BGF, Burford and GLS in the Delaware District Court, which was followed by an assertion by these parties that the application for discovery “is subject to mandatory arbitration” under the terms of the funding agreement.

FRC argues that “as  a  direct  result  of  BGF’s  fraud  on  FRC,  FRC  did  agree  to  the Arbitration Agreement that—according to BGF—subsumes disputes between FRC and GLS.” However, FRC claims that it “would  never  have  agreed  to  an  arbitration  clause  requiring  it  to arbitrate claims against Hausfeld”, were it not for the concealment of Hausfeld’s ownership stake in BGF. FRC is therefore asking the Superior Court to declare that “BGF fraudulently induced  FRC  into  agreeing  to  the  Arbitration  Agreement”, and that the agreement should be declared both invalid and unenforceable.

Lisa Sharrow, spokesperson at Hausfeld LLP, provided the following statement:  “The US-based Hausfeld LLP and the UK-based Hausfeld & Co LLP hold indirect economic minority interests in Burford German Funding. These are separate legal entities from Hausfeld Rechtsanwälte LLP that do not practice law in Germany. Burford German Funding was of course developed and set up in a way that was fully compliant with all relevant regulations.”

David Helfenbein, spokesperson at Burford, also provided a response to Bloomberg via email: “There is a dispute in Germany between a client Burford has funded and its lawyers. Burford is not a party to that dispute and its outcome has no impact on us. This Delaware proceeding is a third-party discovery request to Burford for material for the German litigation, which Burford believes should be adjudicated in arbitration and not in the Delaware courts.”

The full complaint filed by FRC can be read here.

Read More
Case Developments Commercial

Deminor Funding Paralympic Athlete’s Lawsuit Against IPC

By Harry Moran |

Supporting access to justice remains one of the core benefits that litigation funding brings to legal systems all around the world, with third-party funders providing the desperately needed resources for smaller litigants to fight against well-resourced defendants. This is epitomized in a case where a funder is supporting a Paralympic athlete’s fight for justice against the sport’s governing body.

An announcement from Deminor Litigation Funding revealed that it is funding a lawsuit brought against the International Paralympic Committee (IPC) by Brazilian Para swimmer André Brasil. The lawsuit has its origins in World Para Swimming’s (WPS) revision of its classification system for the Paralympic Games in 2018, which led to André Brasil being reclassified as ineligible to compete. Following this decision, Brasil and the Brazilian Paralympic Committee (CBP) initiated legal proceedings against the IPC in Germany, arguing that the classification system violates both human rights, and German and European antitrust laws. 

At first, the Cologne Regional Court rejected these arguments and sided with the IPC, but this was eventually overturned by the Düsseldorf Court of Appeal, ruling that the IPC’s position as a monopoly meant that it ‘had an obligation to grant the Athlete a sufficient grace period in order to prepare him for the rule change and his potential ineligibility.’ The court ordered the IPC to pay André Brasil damages, but the IPC is now seeking to appeal the decision at the Federal Court of Justice.

André Brasil is being represented by Counsel Alexander Engelhard and a team of attorneys from Arnecke Sibeth Dabelstein. Engelhard expressed gratitude to have “a reliable and value-driven litigation funder in Deminor” supporting the lawsuit, and said that “together we will do what it takes to allow the Federal Court of Justice to decide in the Athlete’s favour.”

Dr. Malte Stübinger, General Counsel Germany at Deminor said, “By supporting André, we are advocating for a broader change that champions the rights and fair treatment of all athletes. It's essential that we address these systemic issues to ensure that the spirit of competition remains just and equitable for everyone.”