Sysco Corp. must adhere to a global settlement in meat price-fixing lawsuits despite objections from litigation funder Burford Capital, according to Bloomberg. On Friday, an Illinois federal judge determined that Sysco’s acceptance of a settlement deal with beef, pork and chicken producers is enforceable.
Judge Thomas M. Durkin ruled that although Sysco did not formally sign the agreement, the company had agreed to the fundamental aspects of the settlement through email communications and draft documents. “That is sufficient objective evidence of an agreement to enforce it,” Durkin wrote in his decision.
This ruling adds another layer to the ongoing legal battle involving Burford, Sysco and the meat producers accused of conspiring to inflate meat prices. Burford had provided Sysco with $140 million to pursue these antitrust cases. However, disputes arose last year when Burford judged the settlement amount as insufficient. Subsequently, Sysco agreed to transfer its claims to a Burford affiliate, a move opposed by other parties involved in the litigation, reported Bloomberg.
Read more: Judge Blocks Sysco’s Bid to Assign Price-Fixing Claims to Burford Capital
“It is concerning that the court has today opted to enforce a supposed agreement that the parties clearly never viewed as binding,” Burford spokesman David Helfenbein expressed in an email statement. “We think corporate America will be surprised to learn that emails from mid-level corporate functionaries can be sufficient to bind companies to substantial settlements in the absence of executed settlement agreements.”
In March, Durkin permitted Sysco to transfer its chicken price-fixing claims to Burford. However, earlier this month, a Minnesota federal judge denied a similar substitution concerning related beef and pork price-fixing cases.
In his Friday ruling, Durkin upheld a motion by Pilgrim’s Pride Corporation, one of the chicken producers sued for price-fixing, to enforce the global settlement that encompasses the poultry, beef and pork cases.
Source: News Bloomberg Law
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