Member Info for Renegade

An amicus brief (Latin for "friend of the court") is a legal document filed in court by an individual, institution, or organization not directly involved in the lawsuit. These submissions provide courts with additional expertise, insights, or perspectives that the primary litigants may not have covered.

How They Work

Purpose:

They help judges and justices understand the broader implications of a potential ruling, often introducing specialized research, historical context, or expert opinions.

Placement:

While usually filed in appellate courts (like the U.S. Supreme Court or Courts of Appeals), they can occasionally be filed in trial courts at the judge's discretion.

Permission:

The filer must usually ask the court for permission to submit the brief unless all parties in the case give their formal consent.

Effectiveness:

Judges have full discretion over how much weight to give an amicus brief. A strong brief highlights new perspectives without simply restating the parties' arguments.

Notable Examples:

Many organizations frequently file these briefs to advocate for issues affecting the public.

🛑The Heartland Institute filed an amicus brief supporting en banc review in the YPF expropriation case, warning that the recent Second Circuit ruling threatens U.S. investor protections and the integrity of American capital markets. The organization argues the decision allows foreign sovereigns to raise capital in U.S. markets under commercial promises and later evade contractual liability without meaningful remedy. Heartland also claims the ruling undermines the FSIA’s commercial activity exception and weakens legal predictability for investors participating in sovereign-linked offerings listed in New York.

🛑 Friday is the deadline for plaintiffs in the YPF Expropriation Case to submit their request for rehearing to all 13 judges of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit following the recent ruling in favor of the Republic of Argentina. I don’t expect any updates until late in the evening. Starting Monday, the en banc review period begins, and while there is no fixed timeline, I don’t expect it to take more than 30 days.

One clarification: 7 of the 13 judges considered “active” are needed to grant rehearing. Of the three judges who issued the ruling, only one, Judge Robinson, is an active judge. Judges Chin and Cabranes are not active judges but are classified as “Senior.”

STRONG RISE IN ARGENTINE BONDS! 🇦🇷🟢

This occurs after Fitch Ratings upgraded Argentina's debt rating from CCC+ to B-, with a stable outlook.

The rating agency highlighted the fiscal improvement, reserve accumulation, and structural reforms.

One more step on the long road toward credit normalization.

First point came out today. Judge Preska lifts the confidentiality of certain information used in the YPF trial so that the plaintiffs can use it in the ICSID.

Https://www.nasdaq.com/market-activity/stocks/bur

🛑 "The Court of Appeals has granted the plaintiffs’ request in the YPF case to extend the deadline to seek a rehearing of the recent ruling in favor of the Republic of Argentina by all active judges of the court.

It looks like the new date to file a petition for rehearing or rehearing en banc is by 08 May 2026".

My view - The new date will conveniently fall in-line with a full detailed presentation of Burford's 1Q26 financial results which are due around the same time. Bogart will no doubt have much to say on all these matters.

🛑Next steps in the YPF Expropriation Case:

1.Request for review by the full Court of Appeals (en banc hearing). While rarely granted, this case is unusual and was decided 2–1. If accepted, it would take on exceptional significance before the New York courts. Estimated timing: filing within 14 days; decision within 20–45 days.

2.If that fails, the next step is the U.S. Supreme Court. The Court recesses on July 31 and returns in early October. If a certiorari petition is filed before July, a response could come by December. If denied, all U.S. legal avenues are exhausted. If granted, a decision would likely be expected by July 2027.

3.Parallel path: ICSID. This route can be pursued without exhausting the previous steps. The Madrid-based insolvency trustee will continue representing creditors and complying with the mandate of Commercial Court No. 3. An ICSID filing will likely come sooner than expected.

So what's next for Judge Preska? Could she have forecast the likelihood of this decision and taken any further steps to prevent it from happening?

Retirement beckons!

It will be a very interesting Retail Shareholder Audio Webcast and Presentation following the 1Q2026 Financial Results (scheduled for early May this year). Don't forget to tune in folks!!!

Over 38M shares traded over the pond.

Hopefully this will hit Bogart & Co hard and they will not be as generous next year when it comes to the Company's future obligations under the Burford Capital Deferred Compensation Plan. The share price should be the key measurement here.

MarketWatch are reporting that 21.84M shares have been traded in the USA so far. That's approximately 10% of the shares in issue.

Seb today:

🛑 The decision by the Court of Appeals in the YPF Expropriation Case will not be a simple “guilty” or “not guilty” ruling. It will be complex. It is worth noting that Judges Robinson, Chin, and Cabranes are reviewing the case de novo. In other words, their decision is not influenced by Judge Preska’s ruling. Each of the three judges will reach their own conclusions by evaluating the case from the ground up. They are not tasked with determining whether Judge Preska was right or wrong, but rather with interpreting the correct application of the law. This doesn’t mean that it’s better or worse of a specific party.

As a result, the ruling could take several forms:

1. Affirm the lower court’s decision (best outcome for plaintiffs).

2. Dismiss the appeal (similar to the above, for simplicity).

3. Reverse the lower court’s decision (best outcome for Argentina and likely remanded for a new ruling).

4. Vacate the decision (best outcome for Argentina; the lower court’s ruling is treated as if it never existed).

5.Remand the case to the lower court with instructions (neutral, but dependent on the panel’s guidance).

The opinion will likely be lengthy and not easy to interpret in the immediate aftermath of its release.

Oops!!!

Correction, Wednesday 18th March.

Monday 18th March:

🛑 My take on the Court of Appeals’ decision to stay discovery. First, some context:

•There are five parallel appeals. Two weeks ago, four of them were consolidated under the same panel of judges. The primary appeal remains before a separate panel. This was the first signal that the Court was looking to streamline the process — I flagged this in a previous post.

•All appeals, except the primary one, are peripheral or secondary. They all depend on the outcome of the primary appeal.

•Today, the panel overseeing the secondary appeals decided to stay them (not dismiss them) pending the resolution of the primary appeal. In other words, there is no need for the secondary appeals to be decided before the main one.

•My only takeaway: the decision everyone is waiting for may come sooner than expected. The judges handling the secondary appeals are effectively saying: we won’t start ruling on four appeals that hinge on another decision that could be issued at any moment.

MarketWatch are reporting that shorts have gone down from 10.55M (5.37%) to 9.4M (4.79%) on 27th Feb.

Every little helps.

🛑 The Court of Appeals partially rules against Argentina in a case presided over by Judge Preska (Southern District of New York), who had previously ruled in favor of the country. The case is related to Argentina’s defaulted debt. One of the judges involved (Judge Chin) is the same judge currently drafting the ruling in the YPF expropriation appeal.

Re Bogart's comment in today's RNS, "we believe Burford's stock is priced at a steep discount to its intrinsic value".

Says it all really.

🛑 Amid the flood of news surrounding the YPF case, let me try to clarify where things stand today and when we might see a decision on the main appeal (the merits appeal).

There are currently five simultaneous appeals, a contempt motion, judgment enforcement proceedings in seven countries, and an administrative motion filed last week. April will be an extremely busy month in terms of events. We will see oral arguments in four of the five appeals at the Court of Appeals, as well as a three-day evidentiary hearing on the contempt and sanctions issue.

Much of this complexity could quickly become clearer once Judges Robinson, Chin and Cabranes rule on the primary appeal. In fact, Argentina itself has acknowledged this in recent filings.

So when could the decision come? No one knows. But here is my view.

The main appeal has been in the judges’ hands for 874 days, and oral arguments took place 130 days ago. Since November, the Court of Appeals has been issuing decisions in cases that, on average, were submitted 652 days earlier and had oral arguments about 270 days prior.

Setting politics aside (and believe me, I cannot rule out that the judges may be watching—or may have been advised to watch—Argentina’s 2027 electoral calendar), given the number of appeals, administrative motions, and enforcement actions that depend on the main appeal, I do not expect the ruling to be delayed beyond September 2026. That’s my opinion and it could perfectly be erroneous. Again, that’s leaving politics aside—I have a different view on that.

Whenever it comes, the decision will be consequential for one side or the other.

Hopefully this helps clear up some of the confusion.