An affiliate of Burford Capital, a leading litigation funder, has assumed the role of primary plaintiff from its former client Sysco in a dispute with poultry producer Pilgrim’s Pride (production not depicted in this image). Image Source: Benison Media.

That case has taken on added significance in the wake of Burford’s recent setback in its $16 billion claim linked to YPF, justifying a closer scrutiny of the firm’s broader track record beyond a single headline loss.

Burford had been funding Sysco, a former client and major food distributor, in a long-running dispute with poultry producer Pilgrim’s Pride. The litigation centers on allegations that Pilgrim’s Pride participated in a broader scheme to coordinate poultry prices.

Since 2019, Burford had invested approximately $140 million to finance Sysco’s claim—an outlay that dwarfs the roughly $20 million committed by other prominent funders such as Therium in high-profile proceedings like the Sulu arbitration.

Against that scale of investment, Burford’s opposition to the $50 million settlement accepted by Sysco appears commercially unsurprising. Burford successfully obtained an order in 2022 preventing the settlement between Sysco; the distributor then transferred the case to an affiliate of its litigation funder, Carina Ventures. Pilgrim’s Pride nonetheless sought to enforce the settlement in 2023 and initially prevailed in a Chicago federal court, only for the ruling to be overturned by a U.S. appeals court in February 2026.

Yet Reuters reports that the recent decision has not settled concerns even among the judges who concurred with the ruling. In her concurring opinion, Judge Nancy Maldonado pointed to what she characterized as the growing financialization of litigation. She argued that Burford, having assessed that continued litigation promised greater returns than settlement, had effectively taken control over the resolution of Sysco’s claims—turning the courtroom into a “trading floor.” She cautioned that the case should serve as a warning to companies considering third-party funding.

“She argued that Burford, having assessed that continued litigation promised greater returns than settlement, had effectively taken control over the resolution of Sysco’s claims.”

Sysco’s transfer of its interest in the case to a Burford affiliate, Carina Ventures, is also cause for concern as it leaves the claim in the hands of an entity with no direct role in the original dispute. Some sources have even described the affiliate as a “special purpose vehicle” created expressly to take ownership of cases on behalf of Burford, circumventing norms that otherwise frown upon such practices. Such arrangements bring modern litigation funding closer to the traditional concept of champerty, in which a third party with no prior connection to a case finances it in exchange for a share of the proceeds.

“Some sources have even described the affiliate as a “special purpose vehicle” created expressly to take ownership of cases on behalf of Burford, circumventing norms that otherwise frown upon such practices.”

The legal distinction between the two has long rested on questions of control and purpose. Third-party litigation funding is generally permitted where the funder remains a passive backer, enabling claims that might otherwise be unaffordable. Champerty, by contrast, has historically been restricted where outside involvement is seen to distort the legal process—either by encouraging speculative claims or by granting funders excessive influence over litigation strategy and settlement decisions.

Cases like the Sysco dispute should prompt renewed debate over whether that line is being tested, particularly in the aftermath of the case’s transfer to a Burford affiliate. When a funder not only finances a claim but ultimately assumes ownership of it, some observers might question whether the process still serves to resolve a dispute between parties, or instead reflects a financial asset being managed for return.

“When a funder not only finances a claim but ultimately assumes ownership of it, some observers might question whether the process still serves to resolve a dispute between parties, or instead reflects a financial asset being managed for return.”

Similar concerns have been raised elsewhere in the industry. In the Sulu arbitration, critics have long suggested that Therium, rather than the claimants themselves, has driven the continuation of proceedings. When Therium later stepped back from direct funding to act as an advisor, it transferred control of its portfolio to Fortress Investment Group—a move that further reinforced perceptions of litigation as an investable asset class.

Taken together, these developments highlight a broader shift in the role of third-party funders. While proponents argue that such financing expands access to justice, critics counter that it risks recasting legal disputes as profit-seeking ventures. As courts continue to confront cases shaped by these arrangements, the question remains whether existing legal frameworks are equipped to distinguish clearly between legitimate funding and undue influence, particularly when funders draw uncomfortably close to essentially financing their own cases.

REFERENCES

Burford Capital. (2026, March 30). Burford Capital further statement on YPF appeal decision. https://investors.burfordcapital.com

Dechert. (2025, September 30). Illinois court won’t go “cold turkey” on litigation funding. https://www.dechert.com

Knowsulu. (2025, December 12). Jersey Court Greenlights Counterclaims Against Sulu Heirs and Funders. https://know-sulu.ph

Knowsulu. (2025, November 14). Therium’s activity underscores national security risks in litigation funding. https://know-sulu.ph

Scarcellа, M. (2026, February 6). Litigation funder Burford wins US court challenge to $50 million Sysco settlement. Reuters. https://www.reuters.com

Stempel, J. (2026, March 27). US appeals court voids $16.1 billion judgment against Argentina over YPF seizure. Reuters. https://www.reuters.com

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit. (2026). Carina Ventures order. Thomson Reuters.https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com