WASHINGTON — Burford Capital has resolved a lawsuit against former funding client Harvest Sherwood, ending a dispute over a $35 million investment in antitrust cases that became entangled in the food distributor’s bankruptcy.
Harvest Sherwood borrowed the money in 2022 to finance lawsuits accusing major pork, chicken and beef processors of price fixing. After the company filed for bankruptcy in May 2025, the pending antitrust claims remained among its most valuable assets.
A fight over priority
A Burford affiliate argued that the funding agreement gave it a secured, first-priority right to recover from any proceeds of cases said to be worth as much as $1.1 billion. Harvest Sherwood disputed that reading and said the funder was trying to elevate an unsecured claim above other creditors.
Chief U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Stacey Jernigan concluded last November that the funders had not shown that their capital agreement entitled them to payment ahead of secured creditors including JPMorgan Chase.
The parties have now described their settlement in court papers as fair, equitable and reasonable. The terms reported Monday were not disclosed. Burford declined to comment, and lawyers for Harvest Sherwood and related parties did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
A broader funding question
Commercial litigation finance can give a company the resources to pursue complex cases without paying legal costs from ordinary operations. A bankruptcy, however, tests how those private contracts fit within rules that rank competing claims to a debtor’s property.
The dispute — Blakemore Investments LLC v. Hamilton Meat LLC — was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas.
Why litigation finance becomes complicated in bankruptcy
A funding agreement can allocate a percentage of a recovery and grant contractual protections over a lawsuit. Bankruptcy asks a more rigid question — did those protections create a legally perfected interest that has priority over other creditors, or only a promise to pay when proceeds arrive?
The answer can depend on state commercial law, the wording of the agreement, the location of the debtor and the steps taken to perfect a security interest. A label such as “capital provision” or “non-recourse financing” does not decide priority on its own.
The earlier bankruptcy ruling weakened the funders’ position by concluding that they had not shown a right ahead of secured creditors. That did not eliminate every claim. It changed the bargaining range by making the order of payment less certain.
The antitrust cases remain assets
Harvest Sherwood’s price-fixing suits can have value even before judgment because they carry the possibility of a settlement or damages award. The bankruptcy estate must decide whether to continue financing them, sell them, settle them or share future proceeds under a confirmed plan.
Those decisions require a court to balance expected recovery against legal expense and delay. Meat processors accused in the underlying cases retain their defenses, and no value should be treated as guaranteed simply because a complaint seeks a large amount.
What the undisclosed settlement leaves open
Without public terms, creditors cannot yet measure how much Burford will receive, when it will be paid or whether the agreement changes control of the antitrust litigation. Bankruptcy approval procedures may disclose more if the resolution affects estate property.
The case is a warning for the funding industry. A financier that expects priority must align its contract, collateral description and perfection steps with bankruptcy law from the beginning. A debtor must make equally clear whether the funder is buying an interest in proceeds or simply taking credit risk.
As litigation finance grows, courts will increasingly decide where it fits among familiar categories of loans, assignments and ownership. Settlements resolve individual disputes; they do not remove the need for clearer drafting and disclosure across the market.
