Trending Now

The Story of Sriracha: A Case Study in Legal Analytics and Litigation Funding

By Nicole Clark |

The following is a contributed piece by Nicole Clark, CEO and co-founder of Trellis. Trellis is pleased to offer LFJ members a complimentary 2 week free trial to its state trial court database.  Click here to access it today. 

Nobody knows exactly what happened. Each party has their own account of the events that unfolded. This, however, is what we do know. Jalapeno peppers were everywhere. Nestled within the rolling hills of Ventura County in Southern California, Underwood Ranches, a family farm operated by Craig Underwood, had been growing the fruit for the past three decades, serving as the sole supplier for Huy Fong Foods, the company responsible for sriracha. Business boomed. Both companies expanded. The world was their oyster.

Then, in 2016, the paradise they built crumbled. Huy Fong Foods filed a lawsuit against Underwood Ranches, accusing the farm of overcharging for growing costs. In response, Underwood Ranches countersued, claiming breach of contract and financial loss. After a three week trial, a jury for the Ventura County Superior Court found merit with both claims, awarding Huy Fong Foods $1.45 million and Underwood Ranches $23.3 million. Huy Fong Foods appealed the verdict, and, unable to claim its award, Underwood Ranches stood on the brink of financial collapse, left without the funds needed to pay its suppliers or its workers.

The Flames of Uncertainty

“The benefit you get from litigation is that litigation doesn’t fluctuate the same way that the markets do,” explains Christopher Bogart of Burford Capital. The financial service company had been called by the attorneys of Underwood Ranches to assist the farm, providing it with $4 million in non-recourse financing—enough to carry it through the appeal process. Still, according to Bogart, the comparative stability of litigation doesn’t eliminate the risks of financing a case like this. The risks, and the costs, can be big.

It’s easy to overlook the uncertainties embedded within the legal system. After all, this is a system that relies on precedents, a situation which suggests that the outcome of any future case should reflect that which came before. As Gail Gottehrer, an emerging technologies attorney based in New York City, remarks, “[i]f your case is similar and has similar facts to another case, the results shouldn’t be too surprising.” The problem, however, is that the results often are surprising. Judges aren’t computers. Neither are juries. They are people, filled with their own beliefs and their own experiences, both of which shape how they interpret laws, apply facts, and consider arguments.

Over the years, attorneys have developed their own rudimentary tools for grappling with this uncertainty. These rudimentary tools have now morphed into powerful machine learning technologies, packed with the ability to comb through millions of state trial court records in order to analyze court dockets, judicial rulings, and verdict data in ways that have rendered civil litigation more transparent and more predictable. But what does the story of sriracha mean for litigation funding teams? How can litigation finance companies use state trial court records to navigate uncertain legal terrains, not just for cases at the end of their lifecycle, but also for those that have only just begun?

Harvesting the Seeds

It could start with a ping. That’s just one way litigation funding companies can tap into new business opportunities. By registering for alerts with a legal analytics platform, litigation funding teams no longer need to source leads through collaborating attorneys. Alerts afford litigation funders with their own bird’s-eye view of the litigation landscape as it unfolds in real-time. These systems can notify users whenever a new case has been filed against a particular company, a new entry has been added to a case docket, or a new ruling has been issued on a legal claim.

To help manage the scale—and the urgency—of this reality, litigation funding teams can also turn to a different tool: the daily filings report. A daily filings report is a spreadsheet that contains detailed coverage of all new civil actions filed in a specific jurisdiction. Each report is emailed to subscribers every morning and includes all case data (i.e., judge, party, counsel, practice area) and metadata (i.e., case summary) as well as direct links to the docket and the complaint. With reliable access to daily filings reports, litigation funders can be the first to know about any new cases filed within a particular jurisdiction, pinpointing the most lucrative cases before anyone else.

Heat Indexing

What happens, then, when a litigation funding team finds a potential case? The daily filings report lets funders access the complaint within seconds, gathering all of the information they need to perform a Google-like search through the millions of state trial court records that have been curated by their preferred legal analytics provider. The goal? To quickly learn more about the litigation history of the parties that are named in the complaint (What other cases does Underwood Ranches have pending? What practice areas drain its budget? Who is its primary outside counsel?) and the law firm that has chosen to represent them (How experienced is Ferguson Case Orr Paterson with this jurisdiction, practice area, opposing counsel? Who are its typical clients? How were those cases resolved?).

The due diligence process deepens with a look at the merits of the case. Here, a litigation funding team can use legal analytics to follow the logics of conventional legal research. With access to a searchable database of prior decisional law, funders can conduct element-focused analyses of each asserted cause of action in the case, identifying the ways in which judges in the county have ruled on similar actions in the past. And, if a judge has already been assigned to the case, these funders can take their due diligence even further, turning their eyes to a judge analytics dashboard—an interactive interface developed by legal analytics platforms to highlight the patterns, the inclinations, and the past experiences of specific judicial officers.

Consider the dispute between Underwood Ranches and Huy Fong Foods, a case presided over by the Hon. Henry J. Walsh. According to Trellis, the average case length in Ventura County is 945 days. Knowing where Walsh sits in relation to this average, as well as the number of cases he has on deck, could help a litigation funder anticipate the likely pace of a case, a key piece of information to have when designing different investment portfolios. But what about juries? How might a jury respond to a breach of contract case in California? Legal analytics platforms like Trellis have also integrated verdict data into their systems, amending their archives of state trial court records to also include information related to case outcomes and settlement awards. A litigation funder conducting due diligence on Underwood Ranches could quickly pull a random sample of agricultural-related breach of contract claims in California, identifying the value range of verdict and settlement amounts (median: $5,650,798; average $9,331,712) and the frequency of plaintiff verdicts (62.5 percent). Litigation funders no longer need to wonder how much a case might be worth. The numbers are there.

The Spiciest Pepper

“There is idiosyncratic risk in the court system that can’t be anticipated,” begins Eva Shang, the co-founder of Legalist. It is widely known that predicting the outcome of litigation can be a risky business. Yet, there is something to be said about the magic of big numbers. Whenever we feed our computers the (meta)data of thousands of cases, deviations get smoothed out and patterns begin to emerge. By shifting our thinking away from stories about individual lawsuits, we can redirect our attention towards that which is frequent, recurrent, predictable. As a case study, the story of sriracha opens the door to a more predictable world, a world where the outcomes of litigation don’t have to fluctuate the way that markets do, not because the courtroom is inherently less uncertain than a stock exchange, but because the magic of big numbers finds increasingly novel ways to make it that way.

By Nicole Clark

CEO and co-founder of Trellis | Business litigation and labor and employment attorney

Trellis is an AI-powered legal research and analytics platform that gives state court litigators a competitive advantage by making trial court rulings searchable, and providing insights into the patterns and tendencies of your opposing counsel, and your state court judges.

Trellis is pleased to offer LFJ members a complimentary 2 week free trial to its state trial court database.  Click here to access it today. 

About the author

Case Developments

View All

Deminor Funding Paralympic Athlete’s Lawsuit Against IPC

By Harry Moran |

Supporting access to justice remains one of the core benefits that litigation funding brings to legal systems all around the world, with third-party funders providing the desperately needed resources for smaller litigants to fight against well-resourced defendants. This is epitomized in a case where a funder is supporting a Paralympic athlete’s fight for justice against the sport’s governing body.

An announcement from Deminor Litigation Funding revealed that it is funding a lawsuit brought against the International Paralympic Committee (IPC) by Brazilian Para swimmer André Brasil. The lawsuit has its origins in World Para Swimming’s (WPS) revision of its classification system for the Paralympic Games in 2018, which led to André Brasil being reclassified as ineligible to compete. Following this decision, Brasil and the Brazilian Paralympic Committee (CBP) initiated legal proceedings against the IPC in Germany, arguing that the classification system violates both human rights, and German and European antitrust laws. 

At first, the Cologne Regional Court rejected these arguments and sided with the IPC, but this was eventually overturned by the Düsseldorf Court of Appeal, ruling that the IPC’s position as a monopoly meant that it ‘had an obligation to grant the Athlete a sufficient grace period in order to prepare him for the rule change and his potential ineligibility.’ The court ordered the IPC to pay André Brasil damages, but the IPC is now seeking to appeal the decision at the Federal Court of Justice.

André Brasil is being represented by Counsel Alexander Engelhard and a team of attorneys from Arnecke Sibeth Dabelstein. Engelhard expressed gratitude to have “a reliable and value-driven litigation funder in Deminor” supporting the lawsuit, and said that “together we will do what it takes to allow the Federal Court of Justice to decide in the Athlete’s favour.”

Dr. Malte Stübinger, General Counsel Germany at Deminor said, “By supporting André, we are advocating for a broader change that champions the rights and fair treatment of all athletes. It's essential that we address these systemic issues to ensure that the spirit of competition remains just and equitable for everyone.”

£2.7 Billion Competition Claim Filed Against Amazon, Funded by Innsworth

By Harry Moran |

Following on from the news LFJ reported earlier this month that Amazon was already facing one class action claim in the UK, we have now had confirmation that a second claim has been filed against the online retailing giant over allegations that it has engaged in anticompetitive behaviour.

An announcement from Geradin Partners reveals that a claim has today been filed against Amazon before the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT), which alleges that Amazon’s anticompetitive practices discriminated against third-party sellers and harmed their businesses. The opt-out claim is valued in excess of £2.7 billion and is being brought by Professor Andreas Stephan, professor of competition law at the University of East Anglia, on behalf of more than 200,000 UK third-party sellers on Amazon who used a “professional” selling account on the site between June 2018 and June 2024.

The claim alleges that Amazon has engaged in a wide variety of anticompetitive abuses, including discriminating in favour of its own retail sellers and conditioning third-party sellers’ access to its Amazon Prime service to the use of its own Fulfilment by Amazon (FBA) logistics services. As a result of this conduct, the claim argues that these third-party sellers have been harmed through lost sales, as well as higher costs and paid fees to Amazon. 

Commenting on the announcement, Professor Stephan said: “Amazon has engaged in a variety of strategies to grow its e-commerce platform, lock sellers into it, prevent the expansion of rivals, and use its market dominance to exploit the hundreds of thousands of sellers in Britain that use its platform.” Damian Geradin, founding partner of Geradin Partners, explained that this opt-out claim “gives sellers the opportunity to seek redress for the significant harm they have suffered.”

In a post on LinkedIn, Damian Geradin confirmed that Innsworth Advisors Ltd. is providing litigation funding for the case.

Professor Stephan’s legal team is being led by Geradin Partners, alongside Kieron Beal KC of Blackstone Chambers, Daniel Carall-Green and Hannah Bernstein from Fountain Court Chambers. The claim is also being supported by advisors from Frontier Economics, and a consultative council that includes former Supreme Court president Lord Neuberger, Stephen Robertson, former Director General of the British Retail Consortium, and commercial litigation specialist Sue Prevezer KC.More information can be found on the claim website.

Erso Capital Funding £382M Claim Against Salmon Producers’ Price-Fixing Cartel

By Harry Moran |

The funding of UK class action lawsuits appears to be once again gaining momentum, as following LFJ’s reporting last week on an £878 million opt-out claim brought against Royal Mail, there has now been the announcement of a new £382 million claim targeting some of the world’s largest salmon producers.

Reporting from The Guardian covers the filing of a new collective action proceeding order filed at the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) last Thursday. This opt-out claim is being brought on behalf of UK consumers, and is targeting six salmon producers over allegations that they breached competition law by colluding to increase the price of farmed Atlantic salmon. The ‘salmon claim’ is seeking up to £382 million in compensation for consumers who bought these salmon products between October 2015 and May 2019. The salmon producers accused of forming this price-fixing cartel are: Mowi, Mowi Holdings, SalMar, Lerøy, Scottish Sea Farms and Grieg.

The claim has been filed by Waterside Class Limited, a company set up to bring this claim on behalf of UK consumers, with Anne Heal acting as the class representative. The claim is being represented by Simmons & Simmons, along with Sarah Abram KC and Matthew Kennedy of Brick Court Chambers, and Camilla Cockerill of 4 New Square Chambers. Waterside has also secured funding for the claim from Erso Capital, along with litigation insurance protection.

Heal, who previously led the Thames Water customer challenge group, said: “This action claims that some of the Atlantic salmon farming industry’s biggest companies have conspired to raid the wallets of hard-working shoppers. This action aims to seek fair redress for the millions of British consumers who we say spent years overpaying for one of the UK’s favourite and highly nutritious foods.”

Of the six salmon producers targeted in the claim, three did not provide a comment to The Guardian, Mowi denied that it had engaged in anti-competitive behaviour, whilst Grieg Seafood similarly denied any wrongdoing and stated they would “exercise all our rights of defence”. 

Salmar provided the most thorough response, with a spokesperson for the company stating: “SalMar is aware of the planned legal action on behalf of the UK consumers. SalMar disputes strongly the allegations of price fixing and notes that the European Commission has not reached any final decision on its investigation. SalMar contests all of these allegations and will defend vigorously any legal proceedings brought against it in the UK.”For information about the claim, read the press release from Waterside or visit the claim website.