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
Wildfire Litigation: Building a Case and Establishing Liability with Ed Diab
In this episode of the Emerging Litigation Podcast, you will discover the legal complexities of wildfire litigation as Ed Diab, founding partner of Diab Chambers LLP, unpacks the strategies used to establish liability against utility companies in the wake of Southern California’s devastating January 2025 wildfires. With over 100 lawsuits filed against power providers like Southern California Edison, plaintiffs—including public entities, individuals, and insurers—face an uphill battle proving negligence and inverse condemnation claims. Ed shares insights on case-building strategies, the role of expert investigations, key legal defenses raised by utilities, and the evolving litigation landscape. Tune in for a deep dive into how these high-stakes cases unfold. Don't miss this episode!
Forever Chemicals: Insurance Recoveries for PFAS Liabilities
Take this CLE webinar and gain a better understanding of the evolving legal, regulatory, and insurance landscape surrounding PFAS ("forever chemicals") and their growing impact on businesses and insurers. We feature experienced insurance recovery attorneys Bob Horkovich and Cameron Argetsinger and environmental experts Arthur J. Clarke and Walker Prentke from J.S. Held. Take it now or when you're ready. It's on demand!
Injunction against Trump’s DEI executive orders unlikely to stem massive wave of ‘reverse discrimination’ lawsuits
Justin Ward examines the recent federal court injunction against President Trump’s executive orders targeting Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs. While the ruling temporarily halts enforcement of these orders, legal experts suggest it’s unlikely to slow the growing wave of “reverse discrimination” lawsuits. Since the Supreme Court’s 2023 decision in Students for Fair Admission v. Harvard, more than 100 claims alleging discrimination against majority groups have been filed. Additionally, state legislation and an upcoming Supreme Court case, Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, could further lower the bar for such claims, potentially fueling even more litigation.
Post-Hurricane Coverage and Claims Adjustment Issues
Take this CLE webinar and gain a better understanding of ey insurance coverage issues arising from Hurricanes Helene and Milton, including business interruption claims, deductibles, flood sublimits, and strategies to address delays in the claims adjustment process. We feature experienced insurance recovery attorneys Dennis Artese, Marshall Gilinsky, Joshua Gold, and Grant Brown of Anderson Kill, P.C. Take it now or when you're ready. It's on demand!
2025 California Wildfires Prompt Wave of Suits
Bret Thurman provides an in-depth look at the surge of legal actions stemming from the catastrophic 2025 California wildfires, which caused widespread destruction across Southern California. He explores the numerous lawsuits filed against major utility companies like Southern California Edison (SCE) and the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP), as well as actions against landlords accused of price gouging in the wake of the disaster. Key legal theories include negligence, inverse condemnation, and public nuisance, with plaintiffs arguing that mismanagement, delayed responses, and regulatory failures significantly contributed to the scale of the devastation. These cases could set important legal precedents for disaster liability and corporate accountability in California and beyond.