Federal Judge Allows Burford Capital to be Named Plaintiff in Antitrust Lawsuits
A federal judge in Chicago has ruled in favor of litigation funder Burford Capital, permitting it to be named as the plaintiff in lawsuits initiated by its financing client, Sysco. The decision comes following a challenge from chicken producers seeking to block the substitution.
U.S. District Judge Thomas Durkin granted a request from Sysco and Burford, allowing Sysco to withdraw as the plaintiff and enabling a Burford subsidiary to proceed with the antitrust litigation. This move signifies a significant shift in the legal proceedings, with Burford’s subsidiary, Carina Ventures, set to carry on the litigation.
The dispute stems from allegations made by Sysco, backed by Burford, against major chicken and pork suppliers, accusing them of engaging in a conspiracy to fix wholesale prices in violation of U.S. antitrust law. Despite settlements reached with some defendants, all have vehemently denied any wrongdoing.
Read more: Burford Seeks Order Barring Sysco From Settling Antitrust Suit
Notably, this decision contrasts with a similar case in Minnesota involving pork producers, where a judge recently declined to substitute Burford for Sysco. Burford’s subsidiary, Carina Ventures, has filed an appeal against this order.
Litigation funders like Burford provide financial backing to clients in exchange for a share of any eventual settlement or judgment. Court documents reveal that Burford, a prominent player in the industry, has invested $140 million since 2019 in supporting antitrust cases.
The substitution request arose amidst disagreements between Burford and Sysco regarding the direction and potential outcomes of the cases. While Burford declined to comment on Judge Durkin’s order, Sysco, headquartered in Houston, has yet to respond to requests for comment.
This ruling underscores the evolving dynamics within the legal sector, particularly in cases involving litigation funding and the allocation of plaintiff roles. As the litigation progresses, stakeholders continue to closely monitor developments in these high-profile antitrust lawsuits.
Source: Reuters
Featured News
Judge Allows FTC Antitrust Case Against Amazon to Move Forward
Oct 1, 2024 by
CPI
SAP Leader Urges Caution on EU AI Rules, Warns of Competitive Disadvantage
Oct 1, 2024 by
CPI
Colorado’s Grocery Workers Unite to Oppose $24.6 Billion Supermarket Merge
Oct 1, 2024 by
CPI
Canada’s Competition Bureau Warns Businesses of Tougher Enforcement
Oct 1, 2024 by
CPI
Top Antitrust Lawyers Launch New Boutique Firm
Oct 1, 2024 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – Refusal to Deal
Sep 27, 2024 by
CPI
Antitrust’s Refusal-to-Deal Doctrine: The Emperor Has No Clothes
Sep 27, 2024 by
Erik Hovenkamp
Why All Antitrust Claims are Refusal to Deal Claims and What that Means for Policy
Sep 27, 2024 by
Ramsi Woodcock
The Aspen Misadventure
Sep 27, 2024 by
Roger Blair & Holly P. Stidham
Refusal to Deal in Antitrust Law: Evolving Jurisprudence and Business Justifications in the Align Technology Case
Sep 27, 2024 by
Timothy Hsieh