Burford Fights on Against Settlement in Sysco Price-Fixing Case

A federal appeals court on Thursday heard the latest chapter in the saga over Burford Capital’s investment in price-fixing cases for Sysco Corp.

Up for debate is whether a $50 million settlement between Sysco and Pilgrim’s Pride is enforceable, given that the deal was never signed and Sysco later assigned its claims to a Burford subsidiary. The litigation funder is challenging an Illinois federal judge’s ruling that Sysco agreed to the “heart” of the deal in email communications and draft documents.

“The only dispute here comes from a non-party litigation funder seeking to collaterally attack the settlement so that it can try to negotiate better terms,” said Christopher Michel, a Quinn Emanuel lawyer who represents Pilgrim’s Pride. “But as this court has consistently explained, buyer’s remorse, especially by a non-party, is not a valid basis to escape a binding contract this court.”

The case is one of many involving Burford and Sysco, which have raised questions about how much control litigation funders can have over the lawsuits they bankroll. Burford invested more than $140 million in Sysco’s antitrust claims against the chicken, beef, pork, and turkey industries. The company later assigned its claims to Burford affiliate Carina Ventures to resolve a dispute over the direction of the cases.

Burford’s fight over the Pilgrim’s Pride settlement is back before the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, which did not issue a decision during the hearing. The court last year rejected Burford’s appeal on procedural grounds.

The Seventh Circuit panel—Judges Frank Easterbrook, David F. Hamilton, and Nancy L. Maldona—questioned Carina’s lawyer about whether the settlement with Pilgrim’s Pride might impact ongoing multidistrict litigation over broader price-fixing allegations.

“The undisputed facts make very clear there was no binding agreement,” said Derek Ho, counsel for Carina from Kellogg, Hansen, Todd, Figel & Frederick. Ho also said that Pilgrim’s asked Sysco for wiring instructions to send over the disputed settlements but the company refused because they did not think the agreement was enforceable. Pilgrim’s sent over three checks, which Sysco cashed, but said the company is ready to return the money the moment the order is reversed, he said.

Burford’s role in the price-fixing suits was revealed in 2023, when Sysco filed a lawsuit against the funder. Sysco accused Burford of meddling in the cases by seeking to block settlements that it deemed too low. The fight ended a few months later when Sysco hadded off its claims to Carina, but the fallout is still weaving through the courts, with disputes over whether the original settlements still stand.

Judge Thomas Durkin of the US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted a motion to enforce the original settlements in June 2024. Durkin said Sysco could assign the claims the Burford, but ruled that the settlement reached before that was legally binding.

The case is: Carina Ventures LLC v. Pilgrim’s Pride Corporation, 7th Cir., 25-1110, 11/13/25