In Re: Cattle and Beef Antitrust Litigation, 0:22-md-03031

Sysco Corporation brought antitrust lawsuits alleging price-fixing in the pork and beef industries, consolidated into multidistrict litigation (MDL) in the District of Minnesota.
Sysco financed its litigation using over $140 million from Burford Capital, a third-party litigation funder, under an agreement requiring Burford’s consent before Sysco could settle any claims.
A dispute arose between Sysco and Burford when Burford vetoed settlements that Sysco had negotiated, leading to arbitration.
During arbitration, Sysco assigned its MDL claims to Carina Ventures, a special purpose vehicle created by Burford, and moved to substitute Carina as plaintiff under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(c).
The Magistrate Judge denied substitution, citing public policy and antitrust standing concerns, leading to appeals by Sysco and Carina.
The District Court here reviews the Magistrate Judge’s decision for clear error or legal error.

Issue	Plaintiff’s Argument	Defendant’s Argument	Held
Should Carina be substituted for Sysco as plaintiff under Rule 25(c)?	Assignment and substitution are routine upon transfer of interest during litigation and required here.	Substitution would violate public policy by ceding control to a litigation funder with only a financial interest.	Substitution denied. Magistrate Judge’s discretion upheld; policy concerns valid.
Does Rule 25(c) require substitution due to assignment?	Rule 25(c) should allow action to continue by successor—in this case, Carina.	Rule 25(c) is discretionary; original party can remain, especially to prevent funder control.	Rule 25(c) does not require substitution; discretionary denial affirmed.
Do public policy and antitrust principles favor substitution?	Assignment of antitrust claims is permitted; settlements favored.	Allowing suit control by a funder undermines antitrust standing and public policy favoring party control.	Policy concerns justify denying substitution.
Did the Magistrate Judge commit clear error or misapply law?	No clear error; refusal undermines purpose of the Rule.	No legal error; unique facts support discretion exercised.	No clear error; Magistrate Judge’s order affirmed.

ELCA Enters., Inc. v. Sisco Equip. Rental & Sales, Inc., 53 F.3d 186 (8th Cir. 1995) (discussing the discretionary nature of party substitution under Rule 25(c))
Froning’s, Inc. v. Johnston Feed Serv., Inc., 568 F.2d 108 (8th Cir. 1978) (trial judge may refuse party substitution even after transfer of interest)
Gulfstream III Assoc., Inc. v. Gulfstream Aerospace Corp., 995 F.2d 425 (3d Cir. 1993) (antitrust claims may be assigned)
Midwest Commc’ns v. Minn. Twins, Inc., 779 F.2d 444 (8th Cir. 1985) (antitrust standing requires more than commercial or investment interest)
Associated Elec. Co-op, Inc. v. Mid-Am. Transp. Co., 931 F.2d 1266 (8th Cir. 1991) (policy favoring settlement important in federal litigation)