Therium Funds Multi-Billion Pound Action Alleging Truck Cartel Price Collusion 

When shareholders suffer losses as a result of corporate governance failures by large financial institutions, investors often require the support of litigation funders in their efforts to seek justice and secure compensation from these multinational giants. 

An announcement from Woodsford revealed that a group of institutional investors bringing a group claim against Standard Chartered, with litigation funding provided by Woodsford, have received a favourable judgment in the High Court. The judgment handed down by Mr Justice Michael Green dismissed Standard Chartered’s application to strike out a portion of the group claim, which means that the claim can now proceed towards its scheduled trial in October 2026.  

The claim focuses on allegations that the bank failed in its corporate governance around its dealings with Iran and Iranian-linked institutions that were subject to US sanctions, resulting in financial losses suffered by shareholders. 

Standard Chartered applied to strike out “Common Reliance” claims of 949 of the funds that are participating in the group claims, with these funds representing 68% of the claimants funds that account for over £760 million of the claim value. Green J’s judgment examined the prior ruling on a strike out application in a similar claim, Allianz Funds Multi-Strategy Trust and ors v Barclays plc [2024], but found that he had “doubts about the correctness” of that decision. 

In his conclusion on the common reliance claims, Green J wrote: “There are factual matters that, in my view, require determination and the expert evidence might assist in understanding the extent to which the Published Information would have affected the market price and its influence therefore on the decisions made by the Claimants.”

Signature Litigation acted for the claimants, instructing Graham Chapman KC, Shail Patel KC and William Harman of 4 New Square.

The full judgment from Green J in Various Claimants v Standard Chartered can be read here.

The legal fight between Burford Capital and Argentina over the $16.1 billion award in the case brought by investors of the YPF oil and gas company has continued to demonstrate challenges when it comes to judgment enforcement and collection. Although there have been few development since Argentina filed its appeal against the US court’s ruling, a new insight with a key figure at the litigation funder has revealed that the Argentine government is not showing any signs of compromise. 

An article in the Buenos Aires Times provides new insights into the ongoing struggle for Burford Capital to collect on the $16.1 billion award in the YPF case, as Gerardo Mato, who was hired by the funder to act as a mediator with Argentina, has said that there have been no meetings with representatives from the Argentine government. The article provides a behind-the-scenes view of the fight to recover the award, citing quotes from an interview with Mato conducted at Bloomberg’s offices in Buenos Aires.

In the interview, Mato explained that whilst they had “contacted the authorities at the Economy Ministry and legal authorities”, there had been no form of reciprocal communication from Argentina. Mato stated that “there have been no talks for now with the government”, and as of this moment, “no type of negotiation has been established yet.” 

As for the funder’s strategy moving forward with efforts to open a productive dialogue with the Argentine government, Mato argued that “Burford isn’t in any rush on this issue” and that “the best tool that we have is patience.” Whilst all parties await the Appeals Court’s final ruling on Argentina’s appeal against the award, Mato argued that negotiating prior that decision would “benefit the government”. Instead, Mato suggested that if the court provides a favourable ruling to Burford, then Argentina will “have to pay the totality of the suit.”