Surprisingly, a breakthrough deal has ended the long and bitter court struggle between litigation funder Burford Capital and food supplier Sysco Corp.
This comes as Sysco has decided to hand up its claims in the chicken antitrust litigation to a Burford subsidiary known as Carina Ventures LLC. The extraordinary character of this arrangement is highlighted by the mutual dismissal of all claims while maintaining strict confidentiality.
This essay dives into the specifics, illuminating the unexpected shift and the underlying tensions that precipitated this out-of-the-ordinary result.
An Unconventional Resolution
Burford Capital, a lawsuit funding company, and Sysco Corp., a food supply company, have unexpectedly settled their long-running legal dispute. The parties have officially ended their lawsuit and arbitration with a dismissal of all claims with prejudice, as shown by court records.
Surprisingly, Sysco has handed over its chicken antitrust litigation claims to Burford’s Carina Ventures LLC. Because of the silence from both sides, it is unclear what motivated this remarkable accord.
An Unusual Transition
Sysco and Burford’s antitrust actions against poultry farmers have taken an unusual turn since they announced their withdrawal from the legal scene. The introduction of Carina in their place has drastically altered the course of the judicial procedures.
Carina Ventures LLC, which was formerly Sysco’s function, is now an active participant in the dispute. This sudden turn of events provides an interesting new actor, further complicating the already convoluted legal processes.
A Troubled Relationship Exposed
The legal drama began when Sysco sued the pig and poultry industry for antitrust violations. Sysco borrowed $140 million from Burford so that it could fight its legal challenges.
Sysco first claimed that the litigation funder did not interfere with settlements in at least two of its lawsuits with the producers, but then changed its tune.
The lawsuit funding sector has been under scrutiny since this debate began, with some pointing out the possibility for litigation funders to meddle in current cases.
Burford’s Decisive Move
Burford responded to Sysco’s claims of price-fixing by obtaining an arbitration ruling in New York that prevented Sysco from completing settlements in the litigation.
The lawsuit funder complained that the suggested settlements were “too low” and claimed veto power over the negotiations, something that Burford usually lacks.
Sysco’s illegal assignment of certain of its legal rights against the processors to its consumers prompted the parties to their financing agreement to come up with this novel solution.
Burford Capital and Sysco Corp. have gone for an unusual solution by dismissing all claims in Sysco Corp. v. Glaz LLC. Recently, the litigation financing industry’s focus has shifted to an unanticipated aspect of the case at hand.
Sysco’s claim assignment to Carina Ventures LLC represents a dramatic turn in the case. It will take some time to properly comprehend the effects of this arrangement and the larger implications it has for the litigation financing environment.