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

Omni Bridgeway Funds Fresh Paint-Peel Claim Against Toyota Australia

By John Freund |

Omni Bridgeway has stepped in to bankroll a newly-filed Federal Court class action alleging that certain 2010-14 Toyota Corolla models suffer from a manufacturing defect that causes factory “040 white” paint to flake under UV exposure. Lead plaintiff Mary Elizabeth Fabian seeks compensation for diminished vehicle value and associated distress.

An article in Lawyerly says William Roberts Lawyers lodged the claim late Wednesday in Sydney, with Omni providing “no-win-no-pay” financing and an adverse-costs indemnity. The suit covers consumers who bought affected sedans or hatchbacks after 1 January 2011.

Plaintiffs allege Toyota breached Australia’s Consumer Law guarantee of acceptable quality, citing a 2022 Toyota bulletin that acknowledged adhesive degradation between primer and base metal. Class members face no out-of-pocket exposure; Omni recoups costs and takes a court-approved commission only from any recovery. Registration is open nationwide, and Omni’s portal details eligibility tests based on VIN build plates and paint codes.

The case exemplifies funders’ deepening appetite for high-volume consumer-product claims. Success here could spur similar “cosmetic defect” suits—particularly in Australia’s active class-action market—further diversifying funders’ portfolios beyond financial-services and securities disputes.

Case Developments Commercial

Burford Capital Faces Fresh Argentine Pushback in YPF Turnover Battle

By John Freund |

Argentina’s legal team has fired its latest salvo in the long-running, Burford-backed YPF litigation, lodging two emergency briefs with U.S. District Judge Loretta Preska that seek to halt her 30 June order compelling the country to transfer its 51 percent stake in the oil major to a BNY Mellon escrow within 14 days.

An article in Infobae reports that the Treasury Solicitor’s Office argues immediate compliance would violate Argentina’s hydrocarbon-sovereignty statute, trigger cross-default clauses, and irreversibly strip state control of a company central to the Vaca Muerta shale programme. The briefs also insist the $16.1 billion judgment—won by Petersen Energía and Eton Park after Burford Capital financed their claims—presents “novel questions” on sovereign immunity and extraterritorial asset execution, meriting a stay pending Second Circuit review.

Burford’s creditors countered earlier this week, citing Governor Axel Kicillof’s public remarks as proof of obstruction. Argentina retorted that Kicillof holds no federal brief, seeking to neutralise that leverage while underscoring the U.S. Justice Department’s past reservations about enforcing foreign-sovereign turnovers. Judge Preska is expected to rule on the stay motion within days; absent relief, the share transfer clock runs out on 15 July.

A stay would underscore enforcement risk, even after a blockbuster merits win. Funders will watch Preska's decision, and capital-providers hunting sovereign-risk cases may calibrate pricing accordingly.

Case Developments Commercial

UK Court Upholds Funders’ LFAs Against Apple, Visa

By John Freund |

A unanimous Court of Appeal has delivered Britain’s litigation-funding industry its most decisive post-PACCAR victory to date, green-lighting the revised financing agreements that underpin multibillion-pound collective actions against Apple, Sony, Visa and Mastercard.

Legal Futures reports that the court rejected arguments claiming a damages cap turns a multiple-based LFA into an illegal damages-based agreement. Writing for the court, Chancellor Sir Julian Flaux held that such caps merely shield class members from excessive returns and do not offend section 58AA of the Courts and Legal Services Act. The judgment restores commercial certainty after the Supreme Court’s 2023 PACCAR decision invalidated percentage-based LFAs and froze dozens of collective actions. Four Competition Appeal Tribunal claims—covering interchange-fee suits and consumer-electronics overcharge allegations—had been stayed pending clarity; they are now expected to restart swiftly.

Practically, the ruling affirms the post-PACCAR template most funders adopted: a defined-multiple return with a protective ceiling expressed as a share of recoveries. Claimant firms may revisit stalled cases once deemed unfundable, while policymakers can pause calls for emergency legislation.