On May 10, 2024, Orange (f/k/a France Telecom) assigned five US patents to IP monetization firm Transpacific IP Group Limited. This divestiture echoes a fateful acquisition by Transpacific IP from Orange back in 2017—an acquisition that led to a failed deal with monetization shop Slingshot Technologies LLC, a completed deal with publicly traded Acacia Research Corporation, a litigation campaign from Acacia’s Monarch Networking Solutions LLC that remains active today, and Delaware state court litigation between Slingshot and Acacia that has persisted in parallel, through the present day. In June 2024, Delaware Superior Court Judge Eric M. Davis denied Acacia’s motion for summary judgment in its entirety, with the presence of a prominent figure in litigation funding on Acacia’s board figuring in the disputed factual predicate for Slingshot’s persistent trade secret misappropriation and companion tort claims.

Made public last week, a battle between Sysco and its litigation funder Burford Capital continues to heat up, with recent developments shedding light on the potential influence—and even power—that third-party funders can have over their clients’ settlements.

A lawsuit filed by Sysco against its own litigation funder Burford Capital—which claims to have invested $140M in the food distributor’s price-fixing suits—has provided a behind-the-scenes look into the usually opaque business of litigation finance. The allegations in the Northern District of Illinois complaint also highlight one of the potential pitfalls of third-party litigation funding, namely, who calls the shots: the client, its counsel, or its funder.