Sysco and Burford Capital Butting Heads Over Litigation Control.
- Food giant claims funder is interfering with antitrust litigation.
- Funder says its client is settling for too little.
- Public dustups over litigation funding are rare.
Photo by Richard Lee on Unsplash
Leading litigation funder Burford Capital LLC and food distribution giant Sysco Corp. are locking horns over the control and use of litigation funds. Burford says Sysco is settling Burford-funded antitrust litigation for amounts that deny the financial company optimal return on its investment. Sysco says the funder has overstepped its bounds and interfered with Sysco’s litigation oversight.
Sysco received $140 million from Burford in part to fund price-fixing lawsuits against poultry, pork and beef producers – complex multidistrict litigation involving hundreds of plaintiffs, dozens of defendants, and related criminal suits brought by the Department of Justice (DOJ). So far, settlements of private antitrust litigation have reached into the hundreds of millions, and DOJ has levied more than $100 million in fines.
Burford, which gets a share of any settlements in the antitrust litigation, says Sysco is settling for too little.
Sysco has sued companies associated with Burford – Glaz LLC, Posen Investments LP, and Kenosha Investments LP – claiming they are meddling in Sysco’s settlement efforts. Glaz, Posen, and Kenosha are all companies which have Burford Capital Limited as the only direct or indirect partner. All three are controlled by Burford and Burford operates as the sole funder of their respective litigation efforts.
Sysco also criticized its attorneys at Boies Schiller Flexner, whom, they say, allegedly spoke with Burford representatives without Sysco’s knowledge.
Sysco says the firm gave into Burford’s demands, an accusation the firm vehemently denies. Meanwhile, Burford has obtained an arbitration ruling blocking Sysco from finalizing any of the price-fixing settlements against the meat producers. Sysco has moved to overturn that order, saying it “violates several of the most fundamental public policies underlying our judicial system, including party control over litigation.” Burford claims Sysco gave it veto power over settlements, but only after the food distributor violated the terms of the investment deal.
This high-stakes kerfuffle raises issues around the role litigation funders play in the cases they fund – a subject critics have hammered on since the inception of the industry. While ethics rules forbid interference by lenders, Sysco and Burford clearly disagree on whether the funder veered out of its lane. Whatever the result, it’s unusual to see disputes between funders, litigants, and counsel fought in broad daylight like this.
According to Custom Market Insights, the global litigation funding market was $12.2 billion in 2021 and is expected to reach $25.8 billion by 2030. In addition to London-based Burford, it lists key market players as Parabellum Capital, Bentham Capital, Juridica Investments, Woodsford Litigation Funding Ltd., and others.
Legal News
Authentic Business Development for Litigators: Stop Chasing Cases and Start Building Clients with John Reed
What if waiting for lawsuits is the worst growth strategy a litigator can have? In this episode of the Emerging Litigation Podcast, host Tom Hagy speaks with John Reed, founder of Rain BDM and host of Sticky Lawyers, about how litigators can build authentic, lasting client relationships instead of chasing the next case. John shares practical insights on defining your professional brand, using emotional intelligence in business development, and adapting your natural style—especially for introverts or those navigating remote mentorship. Whether you’re a new associate or a seasoned partner, this episode offers a roadmap for making your practice more resilient, visible, and genuinely client-centered.
New and Improved Antitrust Whistleblowing Incentives with Julie Bracker and Dan Mogin
Can whistleblowers reshape antitrust enforcement the way they’ve exposed fraud in other industries? In this episode of the Emerging Litigation Podcast, host Tom Hagy talks with Julie Keeton Bracker of Bracker & Marcus and Dan Mogin of Mogin Law about the Department of Justice’s new push to encourage insider reporting in antitrust cases. They explore the history of qui tam actions, the power of the False Claims Act, and how individuals could soon play a bigger role in uncovering price-fixing, bid-rigging, and other anti-competitive schemes.
Resolving Business Disputes Without Burning Bridges Featuring Judge Alan Fine
In this episode of the Emerging Litigation Podcast, retired Judge Alan Fine of Private Resolutions explores how businesses can resolve disputes without destroying valuable relationships. Drawing on decades of experience on the bench and in commercial litigation, Judge Fine explains the pros and cons of mediation, arbitration, and “private judging,” which allows parties to choose their own judge and resolve matters quickly and confidentially. He shares how aligning your dispute resolution strategy with business objectives—rather than emotions—can preserve partnerships, save time, and achieve fair results.
Insurance Coverage Litigation’s Modern Mayhem with Jeremy Moseley
Insurance coverage litigation isn’t what it used to be. In this episode of the Emerging Litigation Podcast, Jeremy Moseley of Spencer Fane unpacks how automation, AI, climate change, and “social inflation” are reshaping risks and fueling high-stakes disputes. From thermonuclear verdicts to dangerous policy gaps, Jeremy offers sharp, practical insights into what insurers, policyholders, and lawyers should expect next.
Federal Courts Issue Contrasting Rulings on AI Training and Copyrighted Books Fair Use
Federal courts in California just issued conflicting rulings on whether training AI models with copyrighted books qualifies as fair use. In Bartz v. Anthropic, the court protected training on lawfully purchased works but rejected the use of pirated copies. In contrast, Kadrey v. Meta allowed AI training on pirated books, calling it “highly transformative.” Tom Hagy explains that with more than 50 similar lawsuits pending, these decisions underscore the legal uncertainty facing tech companies, publishers, and creators—and could reshape the future of AI development and copyright law.
