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
From AI Principles to Proof: What DOJ Scrutiny Means for Corporate Governance
In this article, Tom Hagy and Reed Smith partner Adria Perez examine how the Department of Justice’s new AI Litigation Task Force is shifting corporate expectations from AI principles to proof. Drawing on insights from The Emerging Litigation Podcast, they discuss how regulators now expect companies to demonstrate real oversight, documented controls, and defensible governance as AI becomes embedded in compliance, investigations, and corporate decision-making.
SCOTUS Rejects Contractor Immunity Sought by Prison Company
In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court held in The GEO Group, Inc. v. Menocal that private government contractors cannot claim “derivative sovereign immunity” to avoid suit. Writing for the Court, Justice Kagan clarified that the Yearsley doctrine provides only a defense to liability—not immunity from litigation—and never shields unlawful conduct. The ruling ensures that claims alleging forced labor at a privately operated immigration detention facility will proceed on the merits and reinforces that sovereign immunity belongs to the government alone.
DOJ’s AI Litigation Task Force and What It Signals for Corporate AI Governance with Adria Perez
In this episode, host Tom Hagy speaks with Reed Smith partner Adria Perez about the DOJ’s AI Litigation Task Force and what it signals for corporate AI governance. They examine how regulators are shifting from high-level AI principles to demanding documented controls, audit trails, and defensible oversight—and what legal departments must do to meet rising enforcement and board-level expectations.
Summary Judgment and Sham Affidavits: Protecting Your Motion from Contradictory Testimony
In this article, Cat Gavrilidis of Swift Currie examines how inconsistent testimony can undermine summary judgment and how courts apply the sham affidavit rule when affidavits contradict prior deposition statements. She explores jurisdictional differences and outlines practical steps attorneys can take to prevent contradictions, correct the record, and protect a well-founded motion before trial.
Habeas Corpus in Real Time: Minnesota’s Detention Docket Dusts Off Ancient But Foundational Remedy
A surge of emergency habeas corpus petitions in Minnesota is reshaping immigration detention litigation. Federal judges are issuing expedited orders, blocking detainee transfers, and demanding immediate statutory justification for custody. With cases such as Hassan v. Bondi, Astudillo Laica v. Bondi, and U.H.A. v. Bondi, courts are treating habeas review as urgent injunctive relief while confronting jurisdictional risks and mandatory-versus-discretionary detention disputes. As practitioners like E. Michelle Drake of Berger Montague navigate a rapidly expanding docket, Minnesota has emerged as a focal point in a nationwide rise in detention challenges—highlighting the continuing power of habeas corpus as a real-time check on executive detention authority.
