![](https://www.pymnts.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/supply-chains-food-distribution-Sysco.jpg)
A US judge ruled on Friday that Burford Capital, a prominent litigation finance firm, cannot be named as the plaintiff in antitrust lawsuits initiated by its financing client, Sysco, a major US food distributor. The ruling, delivered by Minnesota-based U.S. Magistrate Judge John Docherty in a 29-page document, questioned Burford’s motives and authority to steer Sysco’s cases.
Judge Docherty asserted that Burford’s interests were purely financial and that the firm lacked any legitimate stake beyond its financial investment in Sysco’s lawsuits. These lawsuits, which target major beef and pork suppliers, allege price-fixing practices within the industry. Docherty’s ruling emphasized that allowing Burford to assume Sysco’s position as the plaintiff could contravene public policy by potentially discouraging settlements.
Burford Capital, however, expressed its intention to contest the court order, labeling it “illogical.” The firm highlighted its acquisition of Sysco’s antitrust claims in the preceding year as a basis for its contention against Docherty’s decision, reported Reuters.
Read more: Burford Seeks Order Barring Sysco From Settling Antitrust Suit
The legal dispute marks the latest episode in an unconventional clash involving Sysco and Burford, once considered collaborators. Burford Capital, among the largest financiers of litigation in the United States, typically invests in cases with the expectation of securing a portion of any eventual settlement or judgment. According to court documents, Burford has allocated $140 million since 2019 to support Sysco’s antitrust litigation efforts.
The rift between Burford and Sysco escalated last year when Burford accused Sysco of seeking inadequate settlements for the claims. In March, Burford obtained an arbitration order in New York preventing Sysco from finalizing any such agreements.
Judge Docherty’s ruling emerges after extensive legal maneuvering involving Sysco, Burford Capital, and major beef and pork producers. The crux of the legal battle has revolved around the question of whether and to what extent a litigation funder can supersede decisions made by a client seeking to resolve claims through settlements.
Source: Reuters
Featured News
Meta Eyes Multi-Billion Dollar Stake in EssilorLuxottica Amid High-Stakes Tech Rivalry
Jul 21, 2024 by
CPI
UK CMA Probes Macquarie’s Stake in Last Mile Infrastructure
Jul 21, 2024 by
CPI
NYDFS Bolsters Crypto Oversight with Dubai Regulator Veteran
Jul 21, 2024 by
CPI
Allegations of Collusion in PacifiCorp Wildfire Settlements, Buffett’s Utility Under Scrutiny
Jul 21, 2024 by
CPI
Meta Fined $220 Million by Nigeria’s Antitrust Agency Over WhatsApp Privacy Policy
Jul 21, 2024 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – Private Equity Roll-Up Schemes
Jun 28, 2024 by
CPI
The FTC’s Focus on Private Equity is Warranted
Jun 28, 2024 by
CPI
Unraveling the Roll-Up: Private Equity’s Misunderstood Investment Strategy
Jun 28, 2024 by
CPI
Antitrust Focus on Private Equity Funds and Serial Acquisitions
Jun 28, 2024 by
CPI
Private Equity Roll-Ups Amidst Heightened Antitrust Enforcement
Jun 28, 2024 by
CPI