September 19, 2019

September 18, 2019

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

September 17, 2019

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

September 16, 2019

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

Pork Price-Fixing Complaint Dismissed: Class Plaintiffs Will Amend

Chief Judge Tunheim recently dismissed, with leave to amend, the class complaints in In Re Pork Antitrust Litigation.  The Pork case— filed in the District of Minnesota against Tyson, Hormel, JBS and other major pork producers—alleged a conspiracy beginning in 2009 to inflate artificially the price of pork sold in the United States.  While the court was “unwilling to force Defendants into significant and costly discovery without plausible allegations that they engaged in the conduct alleged,” Judge Tunheim provided the class plaintiffs with a guide to cure the deficiencies of their respective complaints.

The Pork Antitrust Litigation is one of several recent antitrust cases lodged against “Big Food” producers. Like the Broiler Chicken antitrust suit pending in the Northern District of Illinois, the allegations in Pork involve the defendants’ use of a benchmarking service to exchange sensitive business data and coordinated production cuts aimed at raising prices industry-wide.  Both the Chicken and Pork complaints chronicle Big Food CEOs’ practice of publically calling for production cuts as evidence of a conspiracy.

Because conspiracies are clandestine by nature, plaintiffs often lack direct evidence of the cartel.  Antitrust law therefore allows plaintiffs to plead the existence of a conspiracy by inference when circumstances exist that signal-concerted action, or in the words of the United States Supreme Court, “evidence that tends to exclude the possibility of independent action.”

Specifically, plaintiffs must allege that defendants engage in parallel conduct and that certain “plus factors” exist, making it more likely that the parallel conduct is the result of a collusive behavior.   Judge Tunheim ruled that although the Pork plaintiffs demonstrated that the U.S. pork market endured supply contractions during the alleged conspiracy period, with the exception of defendant Smithfield, they failed to adequately allege that individual defendants decreased production, or that these market-wide periods of reduced output were a result of conscious “parallel conduct” by the defendants.

On this point, the court distinguished the sufficient allegations of parallel conduct in Chicken. Judge Tunheim noted that the Chicken complaints specified the individual companies responsible for production cuts and the timing of the cuts, which, in turn, provided the needed support for the theory that the defendants acted in concert.

Judge Tunheim stated that he did “not believe that those deficiencies cannot be cured.” The class lawyers confirmed their intention to amend and the next iteration of the complaint will almost certainly include more detailed allegations on defendant-specific production cuts that the Court previously found lacking.

© 2019 Bilzin Sumberg Baena Price & Axelrod LLP

TRENDING LEGAL ANALYSIS


About this Author

Luis M. Reyes Litigation Lawyer Bilzin Sumberg Law Firm
Associate

Luis Reyes is an Associate in Bilzin Sumberg's Litigation Group. During his time at the University of Miami, Luis was elected to serve as both the Senior Articles Editor for the University of Miami Law Review, and as the Cristol-Kahn-Paskay Cup Vice President for the University of Miami Moot Court Board. Luis was a finalist at the Gaubatz Moot Court competition, winning awards for top overall competitor and top oral advocate. Most recently, Luis worked as judicial intern for the Honorable Paul C. Huck in the Southern District of Florida. 

305-350-2424
Lori Lustrin, Mortgage Attorney, Bilzin Sumberg Law Firm
Associate

Lori Lustrin is an associate in Bilzin Sumberg's Litigation Group. Lori’s practice focuses on antitrust and federal multidistrict class actions. She also has substantial experience in a broad range of complex business litigation matters, including intellectual property disputes, landlord-tenant disputes, land use litigation, bankruptcy litigation, employment disputes, professional malpractice actions, unfair and deceptive trade practices issues, fraud claims, defamation suits, products liability matters, and international arbitrations. Lori’s varied practice has allowed her to represent clients through trial and appeal, both in Florida and in federal courts across the country.

305-350-2385