A Chicago federal judge has given the green light to two class actions on behalf of restaurants, retailers and others against a group of some of America's largest poultry producers over allegedly inflated turkey prices.
On Jan. 22, U.S. District Judge Sunil Harjani approved two motions seeking to certify two classes of plaintiffs - one, on behalf of retailers and others who purchased turkey directly from the producers, and, another, on behalf of a group of restaurants and other commercial and institutional organizations, who purchased the turkey through an intermediary.
The approval means lawyers will be allowed to move ahead with their legal claims asserting the turkey producers allegedly violated federal and state antitrust laws by allegedly conspiring to artificially boost the prices for turkey above the cost plaintiffs believe would have been supported by market conditions at the time.
Attorney Shana Scarlett
| Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
According to court documents, defendants included in both class actions include Butterball, , Cooper Farms, Farbest, Foster Farms, Hormel, House of Raeford, Perdue and Prestage.
According to court documents, Cargill remains a defendant in the class action on behalf of so-called commercial and institutional "indirect purchasers." Cargill has settled the claims brought against it on behalf of consumers, referred to in court documents as "direct purchasers."
Tyson was also sued under the class actions, but has settled all turkey-price related claims.
The class actions will include five separate lawsuits, which the courts consolidated, as they named common claims against the same group of defendants.
The lawsuits landed in federal court in Chicago in 2020, when plaintiffs accused the poultry producers of allegedly using market information supplied by the publication known as Agri-Stats, which was available only to producers, to privately share information among themselves and allegedly artificially constrict the supply of turkeys, driving up the price.
Agri-Stats is also named as a defendant in the turkey price lawsuits, as it is in the chicken and beef price actions.
The turkey lawsuits were very similar to other complaints lodged previously against many of America's largest meat producers over alleged collusion to artificially sustain higher prices for chicken and beef.
Many of the same companies were identified as defendants in all of the actions.
The chicken price lawsuits, which began in 2016, have resulted in a settlements worth hundreds of millions of dollars and tens of millions of dollars in fees to the lawyers who brought the claims.
Some of those same lawyers and firms also brought later claims against beef and turkey producers, pursuing the same antitrust litigation strategy.
Lawyers who brought the turkey antitrust claims on behalf of consumer "direct purchasers" include Shana E. Scarlett, Steve Berman and others with the firm of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, of Berkeley and Pasadena, California, and Chicago; and Brian D. Clark and others with the firm of Lockridge Grindal Nauen PLLP, of Minneapolis.
Lawyers who are pressing claims on behalf of commercial "indirect purchasers" include Michael J. Flannery and Blaine Finley, of the firm of Cuneo Gilbert & Laduca, of Washington, D.C.; Sterling Aldridge, of the Barrett Law Group P.A., of Lexington, Mississippi; and Robert Clifford, of the Clifford Law Offices, of Chicago, and others with those firms.
Turkey producers argued against the requests to certify the classes of "direct" and "indirect" purchasers.
They asserted some of the lead plaintiffs in the action shouldn't be allowed to represent the classes. For instance, they claimed some of the lead "indirect purchasers" were able to negotate prices, allegedly negating their class claims.
And the turkey producers argued the class claims relied too heavily on allegedly flawed testimony from two so-called expert witnesses presented by plaintiffs, identified as Dr. Michael A. Williams and Dr. Russell W. Mangum III.
According to online biographies, Williams serves as a managing director in the San Francisco office of consulting firm BRG, while Mangum serves as executive director of consulting firm, Cirque Analytics.
Both advertise their service as expert witnesses for hire on matters involving economic analysis, including for antitrust class action litigation.
In his ruling, Judge Harjani brushed aside the turkey producers' concerns with Williams' and Mangum's analysis in the turkey price class action. The judge said critiques of their testimony should be done at trial, not before.
And the judge rejected turkey producers' attempts to shut down the class actions by arguing some plaintiffs may not have paid as much as others.
"Based on this evidence, Defendants either engaged in a conspiracy or they did not," the judge wrote. "There is no conspiracy alleged that existed as to only some class members."
The approved class actions will include retailers, restaurants and other commercial and institutional direct and indirect purchasers who bought turkey produced by the remaining defendant companies from 2010-2016.
The turkey producer defendants are represented by attorneys from the firms of Venable LLP, of Washington, D.C.; Falkenberg Ives LLP, of Chicago; Dentons US LLP, of Washington, D.C., and Chicago; Proskauer Rose LLP, of Washington, D.C., New York and Chicago; Mayer Brown LLP, of Chicago; Greene Espel PLLP, of Minneapolis; Bona Law PC, of Minneapolis, New York and La Jolla, California; Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP, of Chicago, Minneapolis, Washington, D.C., Philadelphia and Des Moines, Iowa; Eimer Stahl LLP, of Chicago; Carpenter Lipps LLP, of Columbus, Ohio; Vedder Price P.C., of Chicago; Jordan Price Wall Gray Jones & Carlton PLLC, of Raleigh, North Carolina; Axinn Veltrop & Harkrider LLP, of Washington, D.C.; Manning Fulton & Skinner P.A., of Raleigh, North Carolina; and Clausen Miller P.C., of Chicago.
Agri-Stats is represented by attorneys with the firms of Miller Canfield Paddock & Stone PLC, of Chicago; and Hogan Lovells US LLP, of Washington, D.C.