Burford Capital Ltd

Valuation policy

See note 2 (Summary of significant accounting policies—Fair value of financial instruments) to our unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements contained in this Form 10-Q for a description of our valuation policy for capital provision assets.

The table below sets forth the fair value of capital provision assets, comprised of deployed cost and unrealized gains, for the YPF-related assets and other assets as of the dates indicated.

On a consolidated basis, the aggregate fair value of our capital provision assets was $5.6 billion, the aggregate deployed cost was $2.5 billion and the aggregate unrealized gains were $3.1 billion each as of September 30, 2025. The increase of $126.1 million in deployed cost is a result of deployments during 2025, offset by the return of capital from realizations. See “—Unaudited condensed consolidated statements of operations for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2025 as compared to the three and nine months ended September 30, 2024—Revenues” above for additional information with respect to the change in unrealized gains, which is driven by this period’s fair value adjustment, net of previously recognized unrealized gains/(losses) transferred to realized gains/(losses).

Within total segments (Burford-only), the aggregate fair value of our capital provision assets was $3.9 billion, the aggregate deployed cost was $1.8 billion and the aggregate unrealized gains were $2.1 billion each as of September 30, 2025. The increase of $138.4 million in deployed cost is a result of deployments during 2025, offset by the return of capital from realizations. See “—Segments—Principal Finance segment—Gains from capital provision asset portfolio” for additional information with respect to the change in unrealized gains, which is driven by this period’s fair value adjustment, net of previously recognized unrealized gains/(losses) transferred to realized gains/(losses).

Fair value of YPF-related assets

The determination of the fair value of the YPF-related assets—our financing of the Petersen and Eton Park claims (as described below)—is based on the same methodology that we use to value all our other capital provision assets. In June 2019, we sold a portion of the Petersen claim, constituting $100.0 million of a $148.0 million placement, to a number of institutional investors. Other third-party holders sold the remaining portion. Given the size of this sale and the participation of a meaningful number of third-party institutional investors, we concluded that this market evidence should be factored into our valuation process of the YPF-related assets. As a result, we have utilized the implicit valuation of the Petersen claim to calibrate our model to determine the fair value of the YPF-related assets in subsequent periods through September 30, 2025. Episodic subsequent trading of portions of the Petersen claim have not been factored into our valuation process of the YPF-related assets.

On March 31, 2023, the US District Court for the Southern District of New York (the “Court”) issued its opinion and order in connection with the summary judgment motions filed by the parties in the Petersen and Eton Park cases against the Republic of Argentina and YPF S.A. In summary, the Court decided that (i) Argentina was liable to Petersen and Eton Park for failing to make a tender offer for their YPF shares in 2012, (ii) YPF was not liable for failing to enforce its bylaws against Argentina, (iii) the various arguments Argentina had made to try to reduce its damages liability from the straightforward application of the formula in the bylaws were unavailing and (iv) an evidentiary hearing was needed to resolve two factual issues to enable the computation of damages, where those issues were (1) the date on which the Republic of Argentina should have made a tender offer for YPF S.A.’s shares and (2) the appropriate rate of pre-judgment interest to be applied.

On September 8, 2023, the Court issued its findings of fact and conclusions of law in connection with the Petersen and Eton Park cases against the Republic of Argentina and YPF S.A. In summary, the Court decided the issues raised at the evidentiary hearing in Petersen’s and Eton Park’s favor, holding that the appropriate date for the tender offer was April 16, 2012, and that pre-judgment interest should run from May 3, 2012, at a simple interest rate of 8%.

On September 15, 2023, the Court issued a final judgment (the “September 2023 Final Judgment”) that resulted in a complete win by Petersen and Eton Park with respect to damages against the Republic of Argentina of $16.1 billion, comprised of $14.3 billion due to Petersen and $1.7 billion due to Eton Park. The September 2023 Final Judgment awards post-judgment interest at a rate of 5.42% per annum, computed daily to the date of payment and compounded annually. On October 10, 2023, the Republic of Argentina filed a notice of appeal with the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ("Second Circuit") and, on October 18, 2023, Petersen and Eton Park filed a notice a cross-appeal as to the dismissal of their claims against YPF S.A. On August 23, 2024, briefing on the appeal and cross-appeal was completed. On October 29, 2025, oral argument of the appeal and cross-appeal occurred before a panel of the Second Circuit and the panel’s decision was reserved and will be released in due course. As with any litigation matter, litigation outcomes are risky and difficult to predict, and a loss in a litigation matter may result in the total loss of our capital and balance sheet asset value associated with that matter.

During the three months ended March 31, 2025, further restructuring of the Eton Park liquidation led to a modest increase in our share of proceeds. That restructuring resulted in the consolidation of the EP Funds, which led to an increase of $116.6 million in our capital provision assets, offset by $70.0 million of contingent fees in our other liabilities and $12.2 million in financial liabilities relating to third-party interests in capital provision assets, and an expense of $2.8 million in case-related expenditures ineligible for inclusion in asset cost, in each case, on a consolidated basis as of March 31, 2025 and for the three months ended March 31, 2025. On a total segments (Burford-only) basis, deployed cost increased $38.0 million associated with this restructuring of the Eton Park liquidation, which included $2.8 million of case-related expenditures ineligible for inclusion in asset cost, for the three months ended March 31, 2025.

On June 30, 2025, the Court granted Petersen and Eton Park’s motion (the “Turnover Order”) seeking an order that the Republic of Argentina turn over its 51% of YPF S.A.’s Class D shares to Petersen and Eton Park, in partial satisfaction of the $16.1 billion judgment. The Republic of Argentina has appealed this ruling to the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which has been stayed pending appeal.

On a consolidated basis, the fair value of the YPF-related assets (both Petersen and Eton Park combined) was $2.5 billion as of September 30, 2025. Our cost basis and unrealized gains increased $113.2 million and $236.3 million to $189.6 million and $2.4 billion, respectively, during 2025. The increase in the cost basis was due to the consolidation of the EP Funds, while the increase in unrealized gains was due to the passage of time bringing us closer to our expected conclusion date, the impact of the Turnover Order and the impact from discount rates.

Within total segments (Burford-only), the fair value of the YPF-related assets (both Petersen and Eton Park combined) was $1.7 billion as of September 30, 2025. Our cost basis and our unrealized gains increased $43.5 million and $154.6 million to $113.1 million and $1.6 billion, respectively, during 2025. The increase in the cost basis was due to the consolidation of the EP Funds, while the increase in unrealized gains was due to the passage of time bringing us closer to our expected conclusion date, the impact of the Turnover Order and the impact from discount rates.

Undrawn commitments

Undrawn commitments are unfunded commitments that are attributable to our capital provision asset portfolio and can be divided into two categories: definitive and discretionary.

▪Definitive commitments are those where we are contractually obligated to advance incremental capital and failure to do so would typically result in adverse contractual consequences (such as a dilution in our returns or the loss of our deployed capital in a case).

▪Discretionary commitments are those where we retain a considerable degree of discretion over whether to advance capital and generally would not suffer an adverse financial consequence from not doing so.

The table below sets forth the components of our total capital provision undrawn commitments as of the dates indicated.

As of September 30, 2025, approximately 61% of our legal finance undrawn commitments related to definitive commitments and 39% related to discretionary, as compared to 49% and 51%, respectively as of December 31, 2024.