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

CAT Hearing for £200m Mastercard Settlement Highlights Divide Between Funder and Class Representative

By Harry Moran and 4 others |

Whilst the successes of collective proceedings supported by litigation funders are regularly highlighted by the legal funding industry, an ongoing dispute at the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) between a class representative and funder over a proposed settlement shows that it is not always a relationship in which both parties see eye to eye.

An article in The Law Society Gazette provides a summary of the ongoing hearing at the CAT, as the tribunal hears arguments as to whether the £200 million settlement in the Mastercard hearing should be approved or not. The hearing, which is scheduled to last until the end of the week, saw counsel for the claimant, defendant and funder each offer their arguments on whether the judges should proceed with the collective settlement approval order (CSAO).

Mark Brealey KC, counsel for class representative Walter Merricks CBE, stated that it was the position of both Merricks and Mastercard that the value of the settlement was “in a range that was fair and reasonable.” Responding to the intervention of Innsworth Capital, the litigation funder opposing the settlement, Brealey argued that “the funder should be respectful of the way that Mr Merricks has conducted the proceedings”.

Charles Bear KC, representing Innsworth as the intervener, highlighted the cost of the funder’s support for the case and argued that approval would mean that “the class does not get a fair return on this settlement on any view of distribution.” Bear went further and emphatically stated that Innsworth’s view is that “it is completely clear the settlement prescribes zero value to the case, not little value, but nothing.”

Sonia Tolaney KC, counsel for Mastercard, suggested that it was the views of the class representative and defendant that should hold the most weight, arguing that “There is no doubt that in this case the parties themselves are best placed to assess the merits [of the settlement].” Tolaney also targeted Innsworth’s questioning of whether the £200 million settlement was the best possible outcome for the class representative, declaring that in Mastercard’s view, “that is the wrong question.”

Case Developments Commercial

Omni Bridgeway Funding New Zealand Class Action Against Johnson & Johnson

By Harry Moran and 4 others |

For consumers who were unwittingly deceived by falsely advertised products, a well-funded class action remains one of the few options available for these individuals to seek justice and compensation.

Reporting by The Post covers a new class action filed in the High Court of New Zealand, which is being brought against Johnson & Johnson over the alleged sale of ineffective cold and flu medications. The lawsuit alleges that Johnson & Johnson manufactured cold and flu products containing Penylephrine, which some medical studies have found is not an effective oral treatment for nasal congestion. Eligibility for the class action includes consumers in New Zealand who purchased one of the 17 identified Codral, Sudafed or Benadryl branded products between 2005 and 2025.

The class action has been brought by Australian law firm JGA Saddler, with litigation funding provided by Omni Bridgeway. This is the second such lawsuit brought against Johnson & Johnson by this team, with JGA and Omni having worked together to bring a similar class action against the pharmaceutical giant in 2024.

Rebecca Jancauskas, director at JGA Saddler, argues that “Johnson & Johnson has misled the public and they need to be held accountable for their actions.” Furthermore, Jancauskas suggests that there may be a larger pool of affected customers in New Zealand than Australia, explaining that between 2011 and 2024 “there was no other alternative for consumers in New Zealand suffering from sinus symptoms or allergy symptoms or cold and flu symptoms.”

Additional information on the class action can be found on Omni Bridgeway’s website.

Case Developments Commercial

NJ Court Disqualifies Defendants Counsel over Non-Party Litigation Funding Conflict of Interest

By Harry Moran and 4 others |

One of the key issues raised around third-party litigation funding for patent disputes, is the level of involvement and control a funder may exert on proceedings, and the potential for conflicts of interest to arise from this involvement.

A blog post from Faegre Drinker highlights a patent dispute case in the District of New Jersey, where a magistrate judge disqualified two law firms from representing defendants due to the defense being funded by a non-party who had an interest in the patent. 

In the case of Harish v. Arbit et al, US Magistrate Judge André M Espinosa had allowed the plaintiff to raise a motion to disqualify counsel for the defendants, with the plaintiff alleging that there was a conflict of interest with the lawyers representing both the defendants and Lincoln Diagnostics, Inc, the company that the defendants had sold and assigned the patent rights to. The plaintiff therefore argued that the defense counsel had broken the state’s Rule of Professional Conduct 1.8(f).

Applying the six-part test governed by the New Jersey Supreme Court’s opinion in In re State Grand Jury Investigation, 200 N.J. 481 (2009), the court found that there was evidence that Lincoln “is directing, regulating, and interfering with Defense Counsel’s professional judgment in its representation of Defendants.” Furthermore, the court found that there was an attorney-client relationship between the defendants’ counsel and Lincoln as a non-party, with a representative from Lincoln also participating in the settlement conference.

Despite objections from the defendants over the timeliness of having to bring in new counsel at this stage of the case, the ruling definitively stated that “Defendants and Lincoln, not Plaintiff, are responsible for creating the conflict of interest.” The decision concludes that “the severity of the conflict here is greater than the potential for hardship or prejudice to Defendants and warrants disqualification of Defense Counsel”

The full written decision handed down by the magistrate judge can be read here.