Granulated Sugar

The Granulated Sugar MDL, centralized in the District of Minnesota before Judge Jerry W. Blackwell in June 2024, consolidates purchaser claims alleging that major sugar refiners and processors coordinated pricing on granulated sugar sold to food manufacturers, industrial users, and other commercial purchasers. With 55 actions currently pending — a substantial number for a docket only about two years old — this is a case that drew a large volume of separately filed claims quickly, which typically signals a broad and readily identifiable purchaser population rather than a narrow specialty market.

For a funder, that scale is itself informative: a large number of consolidated actions this early usually means plaintiffs' counsel identified a large, well-documented purchaser base with relatively straightforward transaction records — food and beverage manufacturers and other industrial sugar buyers typically maintain detailed purchasing and pricing history — which can support more confident underwriting of individual claims even at a relatively early procedural stage than a docket with fewer, harder-to-document claimants.

At the same time, a docket this size means class-certification and case-management questions carry outsized weight, since how the court organizes dozens of related actions into workable tracks will shape the pace of the entire litigation. A law firm holding a meaningful book of commercial sugar-purchaser claims — whether food manufacturers, bakeries, beverage producers, or distributors — is a strong candidate for portfolio-level commercial claim funding under Criterica Capital's commercial litigation finance program, given both the volume of similarly situated claimants and the relatively conventional purchaser overcharge theory involved. Firms with claims spread across several of these commercial purchasers, rather than a single large account, are typically the best fit for a book-level facility rather than one-off underwriting.

This is a commercial purchaser antitrust claim with no medical-lien component. A structural brief tracking how the court is managing this large, consolidated purchaser docket is available separately through Criterica Intelligence for firms assessing timing and portfolio sizing.

Pre-settlement funding is a non-recourse purchase of a portion of the proceeds of a pending legal claim — not a loan. If the case does not result in a recovery, nothing is owed. Rates, fees, and repayment terms are disclosed in full in the funding agreement, which the applicant’s attorney reviews before signing. Availability and terms vary by state.