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
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.
Artificial Intelligence Meets Copyright Law with Ryan Phelan and Tiffany Gehrke
What happens when artificial intelligence collides with copyright law? In this episode of the Emerging Litigation Podcast, intellectual property attorneys Ryan Phelan and Tiffany Gehrke of Marshall, Gerstein & Borun LLP unpack two landmark court decisions on fair use and AI training data. They explain why courts found AI training to be “transformative use,” how judges are treating legally obtained versus pirated data, and why algorithmic outputs could be the real battleground ahead. With deep expertise in technology and IP law, Ryan and Tiffany offer practical insights into how these rulings may shape the future of AI, copyright, and innovation.
Subway Surfing Suit Against Meta and TikTok: Setting the Stage for Social Media Liability
Social media platforms are under mounting legal pressure as courts scrutinize how algorithms amplify dangerous viral trends. In Nazario v. ByteDance Ltd., a New York judge allowed a wrongful death lawsuit against Meta and TikTok to move forward after a teen died attempting a “subway surfing” stunt allegedly promoted by their platforms. In this article, Tom Hagy examines how the decision challenges long-standing Section 230 protections and signals a shift toward treating social media as potentially defective products when design and targeting harm young users. This case—and others involving viral challenges and youth safety—may redefine platform liability for years to come.
Climate Change Law: Tension Increases Over Governmental and Corporate Responsibility
The world’s leaders still don’t agree on what, if anything, to do about climate change – despite mounting evidence that, as a planet, we are in the soup. A major ruling from the International Court of Justice says states have an obligation to save the planet, as the U.S. president is enthusiastically sprinting the other way, inspiring cheers from his base and jeers from scientists. As for domestic litigation designed to pin liability on the fossil fuel industry, a case in South Carolina faltered as another in Hawaii is clearing hurdles. Read the update from Tom Hagy.
