The Seventh Circuit’s recent decision in Carina Ventures LLC v. Pilgrim’s Pride Corporation offers a stark narrative about the perils of third-party litigation funding. [1] What began as Sysco’s antitrust claims ultimately evolved into a procedural battle between Sysco and its funder, Burford Capital. When Sysco sought to settle the underlying disputes for a reported global figure of USD 50 million, Burford exercised its contractual right under Capital Provision Agreement (“CPA”) to withhold consent. What followed was an emergency relief before an arbitral tribunal and ultimately a preliminary injunction preventing Sysco from settling. Months later, Burford and Sysco resolved their…

The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has finally settled a question that has long divided Spanish courts: when does the limitation period start for damages claims following an antitrust infringement decision by the Spanish Competition Authority (CNMC)? In its judgment of 4 September 2025, in Case C-21/24 (Nissan Iberia), the CJEU ruled that the limitation period begins not when the CNMC publishes its decision online, but when that decision becomes final after judicial review. In practice, this means that claimants have more time to seek compensation, since the five-year period set by the EU Damages Directive will…

On January 28, 2025, the Grand Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) delivered a pivotal judgment (C-253/23, ASG 2 v. Land Nordrhein-Westfalen) that will have far-reaching implications for litigation funding and collective redress in the field of EU competition law. This decision addresses the conditions under which claimants harmed by anti-competitive conduct can assign their right to damages to legal service providers, enabling the bundling of claims—an issue central to mass harm and cartel damages actions. Background of the Case The case originated from a claim pursued by ASG 2 Ausgleichsgesellschaft für die Sägeindustrie Nordrhein-Westfalen GmbH (“ASG…