![]() ![]() “From the moment it invested, Burford was a real party in interest in Sysco’s antitrust cases with the ability to control key litigation decisions,” said ILR senior vice president Nathan Morris. Chamber’s Institute for Legal Reform said in an email statement that the end of Sysco’s dispute with Burford raises yet more concerns about litigation funding transparency. Rosenthal said he was not available to comment but offered a statement from the company: “We have reached a resolution with Burford Capital allowing Sysco to remain focused on providing exceptional products and service to its customers.”Ī Burford spokesperson declined to provide a statement. ![]() So did Sysco capitulate? Via email, I asked a Sysco spokesperson and Sysco outside counsel Jeffrey Rosenthal of Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton if I’m wrong to interpret the resolution of the dispute as a victory for Burford. “Burford will obviously now get the settlement protections it fought for, plus actual control.” “Looks like Sysco saw the writing on the wall,” said litigation financier Dai Wai Chin Feman of Parabellum Capital, who has written about the Sysco case. But the publicly available evidence indicates that Burford is the winner here. We don’t know if Sysco and Burford reached an additional private settlement that is not disclosed on public dockets. Under the assignment agreement disclosed on Wednesday, Burford now has complete control - not just limited veto power - over Sysco’s claims in the litigation. Remember: The fight between Sysco and Burford was all about whether Burford was entitled to veto Sysco’s proposed settlements with defendants in the poultry, beef and pork price-fixing cases. The motion explained that Sysco has assigned all of its remaining claims to the Burford affiliate - and the assignment agreement attached to the motion said that Sysco had also transferred all of its remaining claims in the beef and pork antitrust MDLs to the Burford entity. Sysco has been a plaintiff in the case, but on Wednesday the company and a Burford entity called Carina Ventures filed a joint motion to swap in Carina. The more telling filing, though, came in multidistrict price-fixing litigation against chicken producers in Chicago federal court. In stipulations filed on Wednesday, both sides voluntarily dismissed their cases. Burford, meanwhile, had sought in New York to confirm the panel’s award. ![]() In the Chicago case, Sysco had sought to vacate an arbitration panel’s preliminary injunction barring the company from settling antitrust claims against meat suppliers over Burford’s veto. poultry, beef and pork producers, resolved their dispute on Wednesday night, agreeing to drop competing lawsuits in federal court in New York and Chicago. ![]() The company and its funder, which invested $140 million in Sysco’s price-fixing claims against major U.S. Chamber of Commerce even jumped into Sysco’s case in a friend-of-the-court brief, arguing that financiers like Burford (BURF.L) cannot be permitted to use secret funding agreements to direct litigation from the shadows.īut it appears that Burford has gotten the last laugh. June 29 (Reuters) - When food distribution giant Sysco (SYY.N) sued litigation financier Burford Capital in March for allegedly grabbing control of the company's price-fixing cases, litigation funding critics were quick to seize on the case as a prime example of the perils of outside investment in litigation. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |