Burford Capital Statement Re YPF Appeal Decision

Core Viewpoint - The Second Circuit Court's decision reverses the District Court's judgment in favor of Petersen and Eton Park, highlighting a significant legal setback for minority shareholders in the YPF case [1][2]. Legal Context - The Court criticized Argentina for its "knowing and flagrant violation" of commitments made to foreign investors, emphasizing the importance of investor protections in the US capital markets [2][8]. - The majority opinion stated that Argentina's commitment to a tender offer was not enforceable by the shareholders, which raises concerns about the enforceability of promises central to US capital markets [3][5]. Implications for Investors - The majority held that claims related to Argentina's expropriation should have been addressed in the Argentine compensation process, which is seen as inadequate for US investors [4][5]. - The dissenting opinion argued for the protection of investors' rights and supported the District Court's original judgment [6]. Next Steps - Plaintiffs are expected to seek a rehearing en banc from the entire Second Circuit, although such requests are rarely granted [7]. - If the en banc petition is pursued, plaintiffs may also consider seeking review from the Supreme Court [8]. Burford Capital's Position - Burford's management will assess the financial impact of the decision, anticipating a non-cash write-down of assets due to the appellate loss [10][11]. - A significant write-down could affect Burford's balance sheet equity, potentially limiting its ability to incur additional debt [11]. Future Strategies - Burford's CEO expressed disappointment over the decision but noted that investment treaty arbitration remains a viable option for seeking redress [12]. - The company continues to focus on its broader portfolio and has recently raised additional capital to support future investments [12].