RE: No.1 player in the legal litigation arena8 Sep 2023 17:17
Quite ! Some important precedents set here, too :
https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/column-this-billion-dollar-case-against-argentinas-ypf-wouldnt-exist-without-2023-04-03/
.."Litigation funders are usually in the background of big commercial litigation in the U.S. You may have heard, for instance, about a recently filed lawsuit against Burford by the food supplier Sysco Corp and a countersuit by Burford. But until those filings last month, you probably had no idea that Burford had invested $140 million in Sysco's antitrust litigation against meat and poultry producers. By contrast, Burford has been openly discussing its investment in the YPF case since 2016, not long after Petersen first sued YPF and Argentina.
This litigation, in fact, would not exist without Burford's funding. Both Burford and Argentina agree on that point, though they are sharply at odds over its implications. Argentina argued in its motion for summary judgment that the entire case is simply Burford's long-shot play for a windfall. Burford, meanwhile, contends that Preska’s summary judgment decision shows exactly why litigation financiers should be embraced.
The YPF case "exemplifies the contribution we make to the civil justice system,” Burford chief investment officer Jonathan Molot said in the funder’s press release. “Without us, there would be no justice in this complicated and long-running case.”..
and
.."Burford’s publicly disclosed funding of the Petersen and Eton claims led to heated back-and-forth motions on Argentina’s demand for discovery from the litigation financier. Burford’s clients argued that all of their communications with the funder were shielded by work-product and attorney-client privilege. It would be bad policy, Burford’s clients said, to force cash-poor plaintiffs to reveal their litigation strategy just because they need outside financing to pursue their claims.
Argentina and YPF retorted (among other arguments) that Burford had waived privilege by selling a piece of the case to other investors. The defendants also said that Burford cannot claim attorney-client privilege because it’s not a law firm but is instead “an investment firm that gambles on litigation.” (After the bilateral posturing, the two sides seem to have worked out their differences on discovery.)
Bogart told me that ancillary litigation over privilege is one of the reasons why his fund is reluctant to disclose investments. “It’s not that we have anything to hide,” he said. “It’s that defendants try to misuse the information.”
Notably, Preska’s summary judgment ruling made no mention of Burford or the plaintiffs’ outside funding, despite Argentina’s arguments that the whole case was ginned up by an opportunistic funder.
The YPF case wouldn’t have reached summary judgment without Burford’s capital. In the end, though, Burford’s money was not relevant to the merits of its clients’ claims..."
AIUI
Sign In
Follow the stocks
