U.S. District Court, D. Minn. (Judge Tunheim) · US (MN) · 2024 · Decided
Citation/Docket: No. 18-cv-1776 / MDL orders, Feb. 9, 2024
Posture: Motion to substitute funder SPV as plaintiff
Funder(s) involved: Burford Capital / Carina Ventures
After the Sysco-Burford settlement, Sysco and Carina asked the Minnesota MDL court to substitute Carina as plaintiff in the pork and beef antitrust actions.
Substitution denied. The court held the assignment did violence to Rule 25(c)'s meaning of transferring an 'interest,' had caused serious disruption, and that the pro-settlement rationale told 'only half' the story; a Chicago judge reached the opposite result in the Broilers case weeks later.
Judges disagree sharply on whether a funder may step into its client's shoes as named plaintiff. Assignment-based exits are jurisdiction-sensitive and can strand a funder's investment.
Weeks after this ruling, a Chicago judge reached the opposite conclusion on a similar substitution question in the Broiler Chicken litigation, leaving the law genuinely split on whether a funder can step into its client's shoes as named plaintiff.
Matters like this one often turn on expert testimony, on valuation, industry custom and practice, legal ethics, or damages. The Institute partners with world-class expert witness referral companies for this purpose.
Compiled from public sources (court filings, published opinions, and secondary reporting) as part of the Institute's Phase 1 Dispute Library research. This is educational material, not legal advice; case citations should be independently verified before relied upon.