Keurig Green Mountain Single-Serve Coffee

The Keurig Green Mountain Single-Serve Coffee Antitrust Litigation combines two related but distinct plaintiff populations under one MDL caption: direct and indirect purchasers who allege they paid supracompetitive prices for single-serve coffee pods, and competing pod makers and roasters who allege the manufacturer used lock-out technology and exclusive-dealing arrangements to foreclose competition in the single-serve coffee market. Centralized in the Southern District of New York in 2014, the docket carries 25 pending actions after more than a decade of litigation, reflecting the layered claim structure that comes with combining purchaser and competitor theories in one proceeding.

That distinction matters directly for funding. A purchaser claim turns on overcharge damages tied to volume and pricing data — a relatively bounded, formulaic calculation once the class period and pricing evidence are established. A competitor claim, by contrast, turns on lost profits and market foreclosure theories that are inherently more fact-intensive and harder to model with precision. A funder evaluating a claim in this docket needs to know which category it falls into before pricing it.

For a firm holding a portfolio of purchaser-side claims — retailers, distributors, or large institutional buyers of single-serve coffee products during the relevant period — inventory finance under Criterica Capital's commercial litigation finance line is workable once purchase records are verified. Competitor claims, given their fact-intensive lost-profits theories, warrant more individualized underwriting rather than a portfolio approach. A structure and litigation brief distinguishing the purchaser and competitor tracks is also available.

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.