Burford Capital’s efforts to overturn an order in Sysco Corp.’s meat price-fixing lawsuits have encountered a significant hurdle. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals has dismissed Burford’s appeal, citing a lack of jurisdiction because the order in question was not an injunction and failed to provide actionable relief.
The litigation funder had previously injected $140 million into Sysco’s legal efforts against meat producers for price-fixing. Subsequently, disputes arose when Sysco agreed to settlements that Burford deemed insufficient. Burford attempted to scuttle these settlements, arguing that they were not in the company’s best financial interests. Ultimately, Sysco allowed an affiliate of Burford to take over the claims, a move contested by the meat producers on the grounds that Burford lacked a direct link to the cases.
A lower court had ruled that one of the settlements was binding, even without Sysco’s signature, as the company had indicated agreement in various communications and draft documents. However, the appellate court found that the order confirming this settlement did not meet the criteria for an appealable injunction. As a result, their ruling highlights the intricacies surrounding jurisdiction in appellate reviews of settlement enforcement orders.
The recent dismissal could impact not only Burford’s strategy but also broader notions around the enforceability and appeal of settlement agreements in complex commercial litigations. For further details, you can read the full article on Bloomberg Law.