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
Electrolux Fined €44.5 Million in French Antitrust Case
Dec 19, 2024 by
CPI
Indian Antitrust Body Raids Alcohol Giants Amid Price Collusion Probe
Dec 19, 2024 by
CPI
Attorneys Seek $525 Million in Fees in NCAA Settlement Case
Dec 19, 2024 by
CPI
Italy’s Competition Watchdog Ends Investigation into Booking.com
Dec 19, 2024 by
CPI
Minnesota Judge Approves $2.4 Million Hormel Settlement in Antitrust Case
Dec 19, 2024 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – CRESSE Insights
Dec 19, 2024 by
CPI
Effective Interoperability in Mobile Ecosystems: EU Competition Law Versus Regulation
Dec 19, 2024 by
Giuseppe Colangelo
The Use of Empirical Evidence in Antitrust: Trends, Challenges, and a Path Forward
Dec 19, 2024 by
Eliana Garces
Some Empirical Evidence on the Role of Presumptions and Evidentiary Standards on Antitrust (Under)Enforcement: Is the EC’s New Communication on Art.102 in the Right Direction?
Dec 19, 2024 by
Yannis Katsoulacos
The EC’s Draft Guidelines on the Application of Article 102 TFEU: An Economic Perspective
Dec 19, 2024 by
Benoit Durand