Agricultural Antitrust Litigation

(USDC N.D. Illinois, No. 1:16-cv-08637)

Cause of action: This case originated in September 2016 following the filing of a class action by Maplevale Farms, Inc. against Koch Foods, Tyson Foods, Inc., Pilgrim’s Pride Corporation, and others, alleging that Defendants together conspired and manipulated the price of broiler chicken since the early 2008 in violation of the Sherman Act, Section 1.

The following litigation tracker is not meant to be comprehensive as some court documents may be unaccounted for. 

Latest Update:

11.18.22 – The U.S. District Court issued an order dismissing with prejudice Chick-Fil-Al’s claims against Defendants Tyson and Keystone Foods (Tyson). Because all corresponding documents and the settlement agreement were filed under seal, no information is publicly available regarding a settlement payment amount. The order states that Tyson agrees to continue cooperating in ongoing criminal antitrust investigations regarding criminal claims “including, but not limited to, claims arising from conduct related to Tyson’s sales of Broiler Chicken Products to [Chick-Fil-A] from 2012–2019.” 

Case Timeline:

In September 2016, private plaintiffs started suing Pilgrim’s Pride, Tyson and Perdue, accusing anti-competitive conduct including colluding to limit production with intent to raise prices, and using Agri Stats Inc. to perpetuate collusion communications. 

9.2.16 – Maplevale Farms filed a proposed class action in Illinois against “Koch Foods Defendants” (Koch Foods, Inc.; JCG Foods of Alabama, LLC; JCG Foods of Georgia, LLC; Koch Meat Co., Inc.), “Tyson Defendants” (Tyson Foods, Inc., Tyson Chicken, Inc.; Tyson Breeders, Inc.; Tyson Poultry, Inc.), Pilgrim’s Pride Corporation, Perdue Farms, Inc., “Sanderson Farms Defendants” (Sanderson Farms, Inc.; Sanderson Farms, Inc. (Food Division); Sanderson Farms, Inc. (Production Division); Sanderson Farms, Inc. (Processing Division)), Wayne Farms, LLC, “Mountaire Farms Defendants” (Mountaire Farms, Inc.; Mountaire, LLC; Mountaire Farms of Delaware, Inc.), Peco Foods, Foster Farms, House of Raeford Farms, Simmons Foods, Fieldale Farms, “George’s Defendants” (George’s, Inc.; George’s Farms, Inc.), “O.K. Foods Defendants” (O.K. Foods, Inc.; O.K. Farms, Inc.; O.K. Industries, Inc.) alleging that, “defendants knew and intended that their coordinated limitation and reduction in Broiler supply would artificially increase all Broiler prices — for spot market and contract sales — above the level they would have been absent the conduct alleged.” This complaint was filed on behalf of “all direct purchasers of the chickens” alleging conspiracy to fix chicken prices began in January 2008. 

11.23.16 – Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs (DPPs), including Maplevale Farms, Inc., filed a proposed class action complaint, amended twice, against Koch Foods Defendants, Tyson Defendants, Pilgrim’s Pride Corporation, Perdue Defendants, Sanderson Farms Defendants, Wayne Farms, LLC, Mountaire Farms Defendants, Peco Foods, Foster Farms, House of Raeford Farms, Simmons Foods, Fieldale Farms, George’s Defendants, O.K. Foods Defendants, alleging that all defendants “conspired and combined to fix, raise, maintain, and stabilize the price of Broilers” as early as January 2008.

12.16.16 – End-User Consumer Plaintiffs filed a proposed class action complaint against Koch Foods Defendants, Tyson Defendants, Pilgrim’s Pride Corporation, “Perdue Defendants” (Perdue Farms, Inc.; Perdue Foods, LLC), Sanderson Farms Defendants, Wayne Farms, LLC, Mountaire Farms Defendants, Peco Foods, Foster Farms, House of Raeford Farms, Simmons Foods, Fieldale Farms, George’s Defendants, and O.K. Foods Defendants, alleging that all defendants “conspired and combined to fix, raise, maintain and stabilize the price of Broilers” as early as January 2018.

 12.16.16 – Commercial and Institutional Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs (CIIPPs) filed a proposed class action complaint, amended three times, against Koch Foods Defendants, Tyson Defendants, Pilgrim’s Pride Corporation, Perdue Defendants Sanderson Farms Defendants, Peco Foods, Foster Farms, House of Raeford Farms, Simmons Foods, Fieldale Farms, George’s Defendants, O.K. Foods Defendants, alleging that all defendants “conspired and combined to fix, raise, maintain, and stabilize the price of Broilers” as early as January 2008. 

8.18.17 – The U.S. District Court granted preliminary approval of proposed settlement between Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs and Fieldale Farms Corporation. 

12.11.19 – Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs entered into a settlement with Defendant Peco Foods, Inc., under which Defendant agreed to pay $5,150,000. 

12.11.19 – Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs entered into a settlement with Defendants George’s, Inc. and George’s Farms, Inc., under which Defendants agreed to pay $4,250,000.

12.11.19 – Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs entered into a settlement with Defendant Amick Farms, LLC, under which Defendant agreed to pay $3,950,000. 

2.20.19 – The U.S. District Court granted preliminary approval to the Commercial and Institutional Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs’ (CIIPPs) settlement with Fieldale Farms Corporation.

7.9.20 – The U.S. District Court granted preliminary approval to the Commercial and Institutional Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs’ (CIIPPs) settlement with Amick Farms, LLC. 

10.26.20 – The U.S. District Court granted final approval to the Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs’ (DPPs) settlement with Defendant Amick Farms, LLC. 

10.26.20 – The U.S. District Court granted final approval to the Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs’ (DPPs) settlements with Defendants Peco Foods, Inc., George’s, Inc., and George’s Farms, Inc. 

12.18.20 – The U.S. District Court granted preliminary approval to the Commercial and Institutional Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs’ (CIIPPs) settlements with Peco Foods, Inc., and George’s Defendants, with conditional certification of the settlement class. 

1.11.21 – Pilgrim’s Pride Corporation filed a notice of settlement with the U.S. District Court, subject to court approval, settling all claims with the Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs (DPPs) in the consolidated antitrust class action suit. Pilgrim’s concurrently disclosed the settlement in a U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filing and shareholder announcement, which states that Pilgrim’s $75 million payment to the DPP class will appear on its 2020 fourth quarter financial statements. Pilgrim’s states that, although it “does not admit any liability for the claims alleged in the Broiler Antitrust Civil Litigation,” the company had concluded that the proposed settlement, which does not apply to non-DPP claims, is “in the best interests of the Company and its shareholders.” 

1.11.21 – Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs (DPPs) filed a notice of settlement with the U.S. District Court, subject to court approval, settling all claims against Tyson Defendants. 

1.19.21 – Tyson Foods, Inc. announced in a filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) that it has agreed to a $221.5 million settlement to settle all outstanding claims with the Direct Purchaser Plaintiff (DPP) class, the Commercial and Institutional Indirect Purchaser Plaintiff (CIIPP) class, and the End-User Plaintiff class. As civil settlements, Tyson expressly does not admit any liability. 

2.25.21 – The U.S. District Court issued an order granting preliminary approval of the settlements between Defendants Pilgrim’s Pride Corp. and Tyson Foods and the Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs (DPPs). According to the agreement, subject to a June 29, 2021, Fairness Hearing, Pilgrim’s will pay up to $75 million to the DPP class, which it previously announced. Tyson, which has previously agreed to pay $221.5 million to settle multiple classes of plaintiffs, will pay up to $80 million to the DPP class. Including payments from other defendants – including Peco, George’s, Amick, and Fieldale Farms – the amount available to the Direct Purchaser Plaintiff Class totals more than $170 million. The class includes “[a]ll persons who purchased Broilers directly from any of the Defendants or any Co-Conspirator identified” in the class action suit between Jan. 1, 2008 and Dec. 20, 2019. Payment amounts will depend on the number of class members who exclude themselves and the amount of Broilers purchased by each member. Direct Purchaser Plaintiff Class members may file a claim for payment until May 17, 2021 at broilerchickenantitrustlitigation.com. 

3.22.21 – The U.S. District Court issued an order granting preliminary approval of settlement agreements between End-User Consumer Plaintiffs and Tyson, Fieldale, Peco Foods and George’s Defendants. According to the Plaintiffs’ memorandum supporting the settlement agreements, the four companies collectively will pay $104 million into a fund to settle claims from end-user plaintiffs; Tyson will pay $99 million, George’s and Peco will pay $1.9 million each, and Fieldale will pay $1.7 million. The settlement class includes “persons and entities who indirectly purchased fresh or frozen raw chicken … whole cut-up birds purchased within a package, or ‘white meat’ parts including breasts and wings” from the companies between Jan. 1, 2009 and Jul. 31, 2019 in the following states: California, District of Columbia, Florida, Hawai’i, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island (after Jul. 15, 2013), South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, and Wisconsin. Instructions and timelines for filing end-user plaintiff claims have yet to be released.

6.15.21 – The Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs (DPPs) filed a motion for final approval of the settlement agreements with Defendants Pilgrim’s Pride Corp. and Tyson. Under the settlement agreements, Pilgrim’s and Tyson will pay $75 million and $79,340,000 million to the DPP class, respectively.  

10.5.21 – The U.S. District Court granted preliminary approval to the Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs’ (DPPs) settlement with the Mar-Jac Defendants and Harrison Poultry, Inc.

10.18.21 – The U.S. District Court issued an order dismissing claims of multiple Direct Action Purchasers (DAPs) against Tyson Foods, Inc. Plaintiffs include, among others, the national grocery chains Kroger Co. and Publix Super Markets, Inc. In response to the parties’ stipulation, the court dismissed the claims with prejudice, barring the DAP plaintiffs from further action against Tyson on the same claims.  

10.25.21 – The U.S. District Court issued an order entering a stipulated dismissal of claims by multiple national grocery chains, including Kroger Co. and Publix Super Markets, Inc. – termed Direct Action Purchaser (DAP) Plaintiffs – against Pilgrim’s Pride Corporation. Court filings do not disclose if a settlement payment of any kind was agreed to or made. Pilgrim’s joins Tyson Foods, Inc. in gaining identical stipulated dismissals in the last week from the DAP plaintiffs in the case. Of the top four poultry processors in the U.S., only Perdue and Sanderson Farms (recently purchased by Cargill and Continental Grain) remain exposed to claims from the DAP plaintiffs. 

10.28.21 – Several plaintiffs filed a motion opposing fourteen (14) defendants’ use of a Judgment Sharing Agreement (JSA) in which they “agree[d] in advance to their relative responsibility for any antitrust damages awarded at trial against any of them.” In order to effectuate the JSA, if settling, participating defendants must utilize particular settlement agreement language that compels the settling plaintiff to reduce any final judgment in its favor by the respective proportion of responsibility assigned in the JSA to any defendant settling before trial. Of the U.S.’s four largest poultry producers, Pilgrim’s Pride (owned by JBS) and Tyson have already settled using the JSA-prescribed settlement language, but Perdue and Sanderson (owned by Cargill) have not yet settled any claims. Among other grounds, the objecting plaintiffs allege the use of this particular JSA is “antithetical to the federal antitrust regime carefully constructed and maintained by Congress.” The issue is apparently one of first impression in an antitrust case involving treble damages. If successful in having the use of the JSA prohibited in the case, the prior settlements with Pilgrim’s Pride and Tyson, as well as settlements with any other participating defendants, would become void and, if possible, be renegotiated. 

12.20.21 – Illinois federal judge approved $181,000,000 million in settlements from Fieldale Farms, Peco Foods, George’s, Tyson Foods, Pilgrim’s Pride and Mar-Jac Poultry. 

4.18.22 – The U.S. District Court granted final approval to Commercial and Institutional Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs’ (CIIPPs) settlement with Amick, Fieldale, George’s Defendants, Mar-Jac Defendants, Peco, Pilgrim’s Pride, and Tyson Defendants. 

2.11.22 – DPPs filed a motion for first distribution of net settlement proceeds requesting a court’s order approving a proposed plan for the distribution of the $108,714,999.81 Net Settlement Fund to qualified claimants – a fund created following settlements between DPPs and Defendants Fieldale Farms Corporation, Peco Foods, Inc., the George’s Defendants, Amick Farms, LLC, Pilgrim’s Pride Corporation, and the Tyson Defendants.

2.11.22 – The U.S. District Court granted DPPs’ motion for first distribution of net settlement proceeds.

5.4.22 – The U.S. District Court denied Plaintiffs’ motion to preclude enforcement of certain defendants’ judgment sharing agreement filed on October 28, 2021, dismissing plaintiffs’ argument that a Judgment Sharing Agreement (JSA) violates antitrust law.

8.26.22 – In a status report, DPPs asked the court to approve the transfer of any remaining settlement proceeds that have been unclaimed into escrow for future distribution. DPPs wrote, “[a]s of August 19, 2022, $103,409,885.42 has been successfully paid and negotiated, $185,857.77 remains outstanding … $170,819.82 is on hold due to a conflict regarding ownership of the claim, and $4,957,436.63 is to be redistributed.”

8.26.22 – The U.S. District Court granted Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs’ request for redistribution of remaining net settlement proceeds. According to the court’s order, “[a]ny settlement proceeds that remain unclaimed as of October 1, 2022 shall be transferred into an escrow account and earmarked for pro rata distribution to qualified claimants in a future distribution.”

9.14.22 – Plaintiff Pollo Operations (“Pollo Tropical”) and the Defendants collectively representing Tyson stipulated that Tyson will provide cooperation to Pollo Tropical regarding claims arising from the criminal investigation into Tyson by the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice. In turn for cooperation on the outstanding claims, Pollo Tropical will dismiss with prejudice its claims against Tyson related to the sale of Broiler Chicken products from 2012-2019.

9.17.22 – The U.S. District Court dismissed with prejudice the claims by Pollo Tropical pursuant to the joint stipulation. 

11.18.22 – The U.S. District Court issued an order dismissing with prejudice Chick-Fil-Al’s claims against Defendants Tyson and Keystone Foods (Tyson). Because all corresponding documents and the settlement agreement were filed under seal, no information is publicly available regarding a settlement payment amount. The order states that Tyson agrees to continue cooperating in ongoing criminal antitrust investigations regarding criminal claims “including, but not limited to, claims arising from conduct related to Tyson’s sales of Broiler Chicken Products to [Chick-Fil-A] from 2012–2019.” 

(USDC Minnesota, No. 0:18-cv-01776)

Cause of action: Individual Plaintiffs, “Commercial and Institutional Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs,” and “Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs” brought several separate civil action suits against pork industry’s major integrators. Plaintiffs accuse the pork integrators of conspiring to manipulate prices from 2009 to present.

The following case tracker is not meant to be comprehensive as some court documents may not be accounted for.

Multidistrict Litigation Order: On January 12, 2022, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation entered a Conditional Transfer Order, transferring all civil actions to the Honorable John R. Tunheim for the U.S. District Court of Minnesota.

Latest Update: 

10.19.22 – The U.S. District Court issued an order granting the Commercial and Institutional Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs’ motion for final approval of a class action settlement with Defendant Smithfield Foods, Inc. In the settlement agreement, Smithfield Foods, Inc., has agreed to pay $42 million. In turn, the plaintiffs agreed to release Defendant from all claims included in the settlement agreement. 

Case Timeline:

6.28.18 – A group of individuals (“End-User Consumers”) filed  a class action complaint against several pork industry’s integrators, Agric Stats, Inc., Clemens Food Group, LLC, Hormel Foods Corporation, Indiana Packers Corporation, JBS USA (JBS USA Food Company Holdings), Seaboard Foods, LLC, Smithfield Foods, Inc., Triumph Foods, LLC, accusing them of conspiring to manipulate the prices of pork from 2009 to present. The complaint alleges that the meatpackers conspired to limit production through publicly unavailable data from Agri Stats, which they used to monitor each other’s production, and through public statements about the need to reduce production, which they used to signal to each other that “solidarity existed” among the companies.

11.16.19 – Commercial and Institutional Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs (CIIPPs) filed a class action complaint against Agri Stats, Inc., “Clemens Defendants” (Clemens Food Group, LLC; Clemens Family Corporation), “Hormel Defendants” (Hormel Foods Corporation; Hormel Foods, LLC), Indiana Packers Corporation, JBS USA Food Company, “Seaboard Defendants” (Seaboard Foods LLC; Seaboard Corporation), Smithfield Foods, Inc., Triumph Foods, LLC and “Tyson Defendants” (Tyson Foods, Inc.; Tyson Prepared Foods, Inc.; Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc.), accusing defendants “entered into a conspiracy from at least 2009 to the present to fix, raise, maintain, and stabilize the price of pork.”

1.15.20 – Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs (DPPs) filed a class action complaint against Agri Stats, Inc., The Clemens Family Corporation, “Hormel Defendants” (Hormel Foods Corporation; Hormel Foods, LLC), Indian Packers Corporation, JBS USA Food Company, “Seaboard Defendants” (Seaboard Foods LLC; Seaboard Corporation), Smithfield Foods, Inc., Triumph Foods, LLC and “Tyson Defendants” (Tyson Foods, Inc.; Tyson Prepared Foods, Inc.; Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc.), accusing them of co-conspiring for “coordinating output and limiting production with the intent and expected result of increasing pork prices in the United States” as early as 2009.

1.15.20 – Defendants filed a joint motion to dismiss the case stating that “the Amended Complaints glaringly still lack any of the specific factual allegations of parallel conduct that this Court deemed ‘essential’.” 

10.20.20 – The U.S. District Court issued an order denying Defendants’ motion to dismiss, thus allowing a lawsuit of thirteen consolidated class actions to go on. The district court found that the Plaintiffs had “sufficiently pleaded parallel conduct and continuing violation” to state a claim under the Sherman Act.

11.4.20 – Defendants JBS USA Food Company (JBS) and the so-called Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs (DPPs) filed a joint notice of settlement. The agreement settles only the claims of the Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs, a subset of plaintiffs and class members in the consolidated lawsuit that does not include commercial, industrial, and retail indirect purchaser plaintiffs. This agreement is subject to court approval. 

12.1.20 – Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs (DPPs) entered into a settlement with JBS USA Food Company, JBS USA Food Company Holdings and Swift Pork Company for $24,500,00 million.

1.13.21 – The U.S. District Court entered an order granting preliminary approval of the settlement agreement between JBS and Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs (DPPs), along with certification of the settlement class. According to a memorandum supporting the DPPs’ motion for approval of the settlement, which was first made public in November 2020, JBS will pay $24.5 million into a Settlement Fund to be used to compensate the DPPs for expenses incurred and damages suffered. Additionally, JBS will cooperate with the DPPs’ continuing litigation against the remaining Defendants. According to the order, the court determined the settlement to be fair, reasonable, adequate, and in the best interests of the Settlement Class, and granted preliminary approval of the settlement subject to further consideration at the Fairness Hearing scheduled for Jul. 26, 2021. 

4.2.21 – The U.S. District Court entered an order granting preliminary approval of the settlement agreement between Consumer Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs (IPP)and defendants JBS USA Food Company, JBS USA Food Company Holdings, and Swift Pork Company – collectively JBS. According to the settlement agreement and supporting memorandum filed with the court on Mar. 26, 2021, JBS will pay $20 million into a settlement fund to the consumer IPP class, defined as US-based “persons and entities who purchased pork indirectly from any of the Defendants for personal use” between Jan. 1, 2009, and the date of the order, Apr. 2, 2021. The $20 million settlement fund will be used to pay IPP claims, litigation expenses, and claim administration expenses. 

4.8.22 – The Commercial and Institutional Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs (CIIPPs) filed a motion for preliminary approval of a class action settlement agreement negotiated with Smithfield Foods, Inc. According to the proposed settlement agreement, Smithfield Foods, Inc. will pay $42 million and provide non-monetary relief through material cooperation to the CIIPP class.

4.15.21 – The Commercial and Institutional Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs (CIIPPs) filed a motion for preliminary approval of a settlement agreement with Defendant JBS. According to the proposed settlement agreement, JBS will pay $12,750,000 million and provide non-monetary relief through material cooperation to the CIIPP class. 

5.3.21 – The U.S. District Court entered an order granting preliminary approval of the settlement agreement between the Commercial and Institutional Indirect Purchaser (CIIPP) Plaintiffs and JBS. 

6.29.21 – Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs (DPPs) filed a notice of settlement agreement with Smithfield Foods, Inc. The settlement agreement only covers claims with Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs, which does not include commercial, industrial, and retail indirect purchaser plaintiffs. This agreement is subject to court approval.  

7.29.21 – Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs (DPPs) entered a settlement agreement with Smithfield Foods, Inc. for $83,000,000 million. 

11.18.21 – The U.S. District Court granted Commercial and Institutional Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs’ (CIIPPs) motion for final approval of the Class Action Settlement with JBS Defendants and Entry for Final Approval. 

4.19.22 – The U.S. District Court filed an order granting preliminary approval of the estimated $48,000,000 million settlement agreement between the Commercial and Institutional Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs’ (CIIPPs) and Smithfield.

8.5.22 – The Consumer Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs filed a notice of settlement agreement with Smithfield Foods, Inc. to settle all claims against Smithfield Foods, Inc. This agreement is subject to court approval.

9.14.22 – The U.S. District Court granted the Consumer Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs’ motion for final approval of a class action settlement with JBS Defendants. The settlement consists of $20 million in compensation and cooperation on behalf of JBS Defendants in the ongoing litigation. The court noted that the settlement provided certain and immediate relief to the class and eliminated uncertain but substantial costs in continuing litigation against JBS Defendants. 

9.27.22 – The Consumer Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs (Consumer IPPS) filed a motion, memorandum of support, and proposed order for preliminary approval of a settlement between the Consumer IPPs and Defendant Smithfield Foods, Inc. In the settlement agreement, Smithfield has agreed to pay $75 million to and further cooperate with the Consumer IPPs to support their litigation against the remaining pork producer defendants. According to the memorandum, more than 19 million Consumer IPP class members have been identified. In addition to the approximately 17.6 million class member email addresses obtained by the Consumer IPPs through subpoenas to retail stores, Amazon, a non-party, has agreed to provide notice of the settlement directly to its customers and has identified 1.8 million potential class members for notification. The settlement agreement now waits court approval. More details about the settlement are available at overchargedforpork.com.

10.19.22 – The U.S. District Court issued an order granting the Commercial and Institutional Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs’ motion for final approval of a class action settlement with Defendant Smithfield Foods, Inc. In the settlement agreement, Smithfield Foods, Inc., has agreed to pay $42 million. In turn, the plaintiffs agreed to release Defendant from all claims included in the settlement agreement. 

(Formerly In re DPP Beef Antitrust Litigation; USDC Minnesota, No. 0:20-cv-1319)

Cause of action: This case originated in June 2020 following the filing of a class action complaint by Howard B. Samuels against Cargill, Inc., JBS USA Food Company Holdings, National Beef Packing Company, and Tyson Foods, Inc., alleging that Defendants conspired together to inflate beef prices to their consumers.

The following case tracker is not meant to be comprehensive as some court documents may not be accounted for.

Latest update: 

8.31.22 – The U.S. District Court granted Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs’ (DPPs) motion for final approval of a settlement agreement between DPPs and JBS Defendants.

Case timeline:

6.6.20 – Howard B. Samuels, a bankruptcy trustee for the estates of Central Grocers filed a class action lawsuit against Cargill, Inc., JBS USA Food Company Holdings, National Beef Packing Company, and Tyson Foods, Inc., accusing them of conspiring to inflate beef pricing to their consumers. Plaintiff is seeking treble damages and injunctive relief as well as a jury trial. 

9.4.20 – The U.S. District Court issued an order consolidating the Howard B. Samuels case, Olean Wholesale Grocery Cooperative, Inc. case, and any additional cases that arise out of conduct, addressed collectively as “Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs.” 

1.27.21 – The Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs (DPPs) filed a corrected consolidated amended class action complaint. 

2.18.21 – Defendants filed multiple motions to dismiss Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs’ amended class action complaint. 

9.14.21 – The U.S. District Court issued a memorandum opinion and order denying approximately twenty (20) motions to dismiss. The opinion and order remain under seal and have not been released to the public. No portion of the case was dismissed, which means that no defendant was successful in having any portion of the antitrust allegations against them dismissed and all cases will continue in litigation towards trial, pending possible motions for summary judgment at a later stage. 

10.15.21 – Winn Dixie, Inc. and Bi-Lo Holdings, Inc. filed an amended complaint against “Cargill Defendants” (Cargill, Inc., Cargill Meat Solutions Corporation), “JBS Defendants” (JBS S.A., JBS USA Food Company, Swift Beef Company, JBS Packerland, Inc.), “Tyson Defendants” (Tyson Foods, Inc., Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc.) and National Beef Packing Company, alleging that since at least 2015 Defendants have “exploited their market power in this highly concentrated market by conspiring to limit the supply, and fix the prices, of beef sold to Plaintiffs.” 

2.1.22 – The Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs (DPPs) filed a memorandum supporting a settlement between the. DPPs and Defendants JBS S.A., JBS USA Food Company, Swift Beef Company, and JBS Packerland, Inc. (JBS). According to the agreement outlined in the memorandum, JBS will pay $52.5 million into a settlement fund to compensate the DPPs, finance administration of the settlement, and cover litigation expenses. The settlement agreement, which names notice and claims administrator A.B. Data as the notice provider, calls for the court to require the non-settling defendants to turn over their customer contact information to assist in notification of the class within 30 days of court approval of the settlement. 

2.4.22 – The Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs (DPPs) filed a proposed order for the court’s approval of settlement with JBS Defendants. 

2.24.22 – The U.S. District Court granted Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs’ (DPPs) motion for preliminary approval of settlement between DPPs and JBS Defendants. 

3.31.22 – The U.S. District Court amended a prior order issued on Feb. 24, 2022, granting Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs’ (DPPs) motion for preliminary approval of a settlement agreement with JBS Defendants.

7.22.22 – The Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs (DPPs) filed a motion for final approval of settlement with JBS Defendants. 

8.31.22 – The U.S. District Court granted Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs’ (DPPs) motion for final approval of a settlement agreement between DPPs and JBS Defendants. 

(USDC Minnesota, No. 0:19-cv-1222)

Cause of action: This case originated in May 2019 following the filing of a complaint by Ranchers Cattlemen Action Legal Fund United Stockgrowers of America (R-CALF USA) and six other plaintiffs against several meat packing companies and anonymous trading firms, alleging the defendants conspired to cause a price suppression of fed cattle over the period from 2015 to present.

The following case tracker is not meant to be comprehensive as some court documents may not be accounted for.

Latest Update: 

9.1.21 – The U.S. District Court ordered this matter to be consolidated with In re DPP Beef Antitrust MDL, No. 0:20-cv-1319.  

Case Timeline:

5.7.19 – R-CALF USA along with six other plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against several meat packing companies (“Packing Defendants”), including among others, Cargill, Inc., JBS USA Food Company, Tyson Foods, Inc., and Swift Beef Company, and anonymous packing firms, financial institutions, and/or trading firms (“John Doe Defendants”). According to plaintiffs, Packing Defendants’ and John Doe Defendants’ coordinated conduct, including slashing their respective slaughter volumes and curtailing their purchases of fed cattle in the cash cattle market, precipitated an unprecedented collapse in fed cattle prices in 2015. 

7.15.19 – Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint.

9.13.19 – Defendants filed a joint motion to dismiss the consolidated amended class action complaint.

10.4.19 – Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint.

11.13.19 – Defendants filed a joint motion to dismiss the second consolidated amended class action complaint.

9.28.20 – The U.S. District Court issued an opinion dismissing a trio of consolidated cases, finding the allegations of the witnesses not supported by a foundation sufficient to conclude them credible and, barring that, noted that “[m]erely cutting back slaughter volume in a single year cannot itself serve as the anticompetitive basis for a claim under § 202(a)” of the Packers and Stockyards Act. The court granted ninety (90) days to file an amended complaint.

9.29.20 – The U.S. District Court issued an amended opinion and order.

12.28.20 – Plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint.

2.18.21 – Defendants filed a joint motion to dismiss the third consolidated amended class action complaint.

9.1.21 – The U.S. District Court ordered this matter to be consolidated with In re DPP Beef Antitrust MDL, No. 0:20-cv-1319.  

(USDC E.D. Virginia, No. 2:19-cv-00463)

Cause of action: This case originated in September 2019 following the filing of a complaint by Peanut Farmer Plaintiffs against three sheller company defendants, alleging that defendants both over-reported and underreported peanut and runner inventory numbers to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to create the false impression of an oversupplied market and to stabilize and depress runner prices. 

The following case tracker is not meant to be comprehensive as some court documents may not be accounted for. 

Latest update:

11.24.21 – The U.S. District Court issued an order authorizing distribution of the Settlement Fund. 

Case timeline:

9.5.19 – Peanut Farmers filed a class action complaint against Virginia-based Birdsong Corporation, Olam Peanut Shelling Company, Inc., and ADM’s Golden Peanut, alleging that the defendant sheller companies both over-reported and underreported peanut and runner inventory numbers to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to create the false impression of an oversupplied market and to stabilize and depress runner prices.

4.14.20 – Peanut Farmers filed an amended class action complaint, adding four new plaintiffs (Rocky Creek Peanut Farms, LLC; Daniel Howell; L&K Farms Group, LLC; Lonnie Gilbert).

5.27.20 – Peanut Farmers filed a second amended class action complaint against defendants, adding defendant Olam Peanut Shelling Company, Inc.

12.23.20 – The U.S. District Court granted preliminary approval of Peanut Farmers’ settlement with Olam Peanut Shelling Company, Inc.

12.23.20 – The U.S. District Court granted preliminary approval of Peanut Farmers’ settlement with Birdsong Corporation.

3.3.21 – The U.S. District Court granted final approval of Peanut Farmers’ settlement with Birdsong Corporation, Golden Peanut Company, LLC, and Olam Peanut Shelling Company, Inc.

3.4.21 – The U.S. District Court vacated the final approval of Peanut Farmers’ settlement with Birdsong Corporation, Golden Peanut Company, LLC, and Olam Peanut Shelling Company, Inc.

3.11.21 – Plaintiff Peanut Farmers filed a memorandum supporting a $45 million settlement agreement with Archer Daniels Midland (ADM) subsidiary Golden Peanut Company, LLC. According to the proposed settlement, Golden Peanut will pay $45 million into a settlement fund in addition to Olam and Birdsong’s previous settlement payments of $57,750,000. After paying attorney’s fees and litigation costs, the fund will distribute payments to class members who sold peanuts to the Defendants between Jan. 1, 2014, and Dec. 31, 2019. Once approved by the court, class members may submit claims at www.PeanutFarmersAntitrustLitigation.com.

4.5.21 – The U.S. District Court approved a $58 million settlement agreement between the Plaintiff Peanut Farmers Settlement Class and Defendant Peanut Shellers Birdsong Corporation and Olam Peanut Shelling Company, Inc. The approval follows the district court’s March 2021 back-to-back orders, absent accompanying explanatory opinions, approving the settlement on March 3, then vacating the approval on March 4. Under the settlement agreement, Olam has paid $7.75 million and Birdsong has paid $50 million, totaling $57,750,000 into an escrow account along with Archer Daniels Midland (ADM) subsidiary Golden Peanut Company, LLC’s previous $45 million settlement payment, which will be distributed pro rata among approved claimants after the payment of Class Representative service awards and litigation expenses.

6.7.21 – Plaintiffs Peanut Farmers filed a memorandum supporting $45 million settlement agreement with Defendant Golden Peanut Company, LLC. In April 2021, the court already approved a $58 million settlement with Defendants Olam Peanut Shelling Company, Inc. and Birdsong Corporation. The total settlement amount will be approximately $103 million if the court approves the Golden Peanut settlement.

7.27.21 – The U.S. District Court granted final approval of Peanut Farmers’ settlement with Golden Peanut Company, LLC and entered final judgment dismissing with prejudice the claims as to Golden Peanut. 

11.5.21 – Plaintiffs Peanut Farmers filed a motion seeking a court order allowing distribution of the Settlement Fund. 

11.24.21 – The U.S. District Court issued an order authorizing distribution of the Settlement Fund.