throbber
Case 9:21-cv-82017-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/02/2021 Page 1 of 86
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
`
`Case No.: 9:21-cv-82017
`
`
`
`
`
`JURY DEMAND
`
`JIMMY JOHN’S BUYING GROUP SPV, LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`AGRI STATS, INC., CLEMENS FOOD
`GROUP, LLC, THE CLEMENS FAMILY
`CORPORATION, HORMEL FOODS
`CORPORATION, HORMEL FOODS, LLC,
`JBS USA FOOD COMPANY, SEABOARD
`FOODS LLC, SMITHFIELD FOODS, INC.,
`TRIUMPH FOODS, LLC, TYSON FOODS,
`INC., TYSON PREPARED FOODS, INC., AND
`TYSON FRESH MEATS, INC.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 9:21-cv-82017-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/02/2021 Page 2 of 86
`
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`Table of Contents
`
`NATURE OF ACTION .................................................................................................. 1
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE ..................................................................................... 4
`
`III.
`
`PARTIES ........................................................................................................................ 5
`
`A. Plaintiff ............................................................................................................................... 5
`
`B. Defendants .......................................................................................................................... 6
`
`(i)
`
`(ii)
`
`Agri Stats ..................................................................................................................... 6
`
`Clemens ....................................................................................................................... 7
`
`(iii) Hormel ......................................................................................................................... 7
`
`(iv)
`
`JBS ............................................................................................................................... 8
`
`(v)
`
`Seaboard ...................................................................................................................... 8
`
`(vi)
`
`Smithfield .................................................................................................................... 9
`
`(vii) Triumph ....................................................................................................................... 9
`
`(viii) Tyson ........................................................................................................................... 9
`
`C. Co-Conspirators ................................................................................................................ 10
`
`IV.
`
`FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS ....................................................................................... 11
`
`A. Agri Stats’ central role in collusion in the Broiler industry. ............................................. 11
`
`B. Agri Stats markets its collusive scheme to Defendants. ................................................... 13
`
`C. Agri Stats provided the Other Defendants the unique ability to monitor pricing and
`production and discipline co-conspirators that did not comply with the anticompetitive
`agreement. ................................................................................................................................. 16
`
`D. Defendants controlled the supply and production of pork in the United States, which
`allowed the scheme to succeed. ................................................................................................ 25
`
`E. The level of concentration in the pork industry was optimal for Defendants’ collusive
`scheme....................................................................................................................................... 30
`
`F. The inelastic demand for, and homogeneity of, pork products facilitated collusion. ....... 35
`
`G. Defendants took advantage of numerous opportunities to collude. .................................. 36
`
`H. Defendants implemented capacity and supply restraints during the Relevant Period. ..... 44
`
`I. Abnormal pricing during the Relevant Period demonstrates the success of the collusive
`scheme....................................................................................................................................... 64
`
`J. Overcharges due to the cartel were reflected in higher pork prices than what they would
`have been absent the conspiratorial activity. ............................................................................ 68
`
`K. The results of the DOJ’s criminal investigation in the Broilers industry support an
`inference of the existence of a similar conspiracy in the pork industry. ................................... 72
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 9:21-cv-82017-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/02/2021 Page 3 of 86
`
`
`
`L. Plaintiff’s claims are timely. ............................................................................................. 73
`
`V.
`
`VI.
`
`ANTITRUST IMPACT ................................................................................................ 78
`
`COUNT I: VIOLATION OF SECTION 1 OF THE SHERMAN ACT ..................... 80
`
`VII.
`
`REQUEST FOR RELIEF ............................................................................................. 81
`
`VIII.
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ....................................................................................... 82
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 9:21-cv-82017-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/02/2021 Page 4 of 86
`
`
`
`Plaintiff1 Jimmy John’s Buying Group SPV, LLC brings this action against the Defendants
`
`identified below, for their illegal conspiracy, which increased the prices of pork sold in the United
`
`States beginning at least as early as 2009 and continuing through the present. Plaintiff brings this
`
`action for treble damages and injunctive relief under Section 1 of the Sherman Act.
`
`I.
`
`NATURE OF ACTION
`
`1.
`
`Defendants—other than Agri Stats—are the leading suppliers of pork in an industry
`
`with more than $20 billion in annual sales. The United States pork industry is highly concentrated,
`
`with a small number of large companies controlling supply. Together with their co-conspirators,
`
`Defendants collectively control approximately 80% of the wholesale pork market.
`
`2.
`
`Defendant Agri Stats, Inc. (“Agri Stats”) is a specialized information-sharing
`
`service that, among other things, obtains data from participating industry producers and develops
`
`comprehensive reports based on that data. Agri Stats provides its reports and findings to the
`
`participating industry producers.
`
`3.
`
`Defendants Clemens Food Group, LLC, The Clemens Family Corporation
`
`(“Clemens”); Hormel Foods Corporation and Hormel Foods, LLC (“Hormel”); JBS USA Food
`
`Company (“JBS”); Seaboard Foods LLC (“Seaboard”); Smithfield Foods, Inc. (“Smithfield”);
`
`Triumph Foods, LLC (“Triumph”); and Tyson Foods, Inc., Tyson Prepared Foods, Inc., and Tyson
`
`Fresh Meats, Inc. (“Tyson”) (collectively referred to at times as “pork integrator Defendants”) and
`
`Agri Stats entered into a conspiracy from at least 2009 through the present (the “Relevant Period”)
`
`to fix, raise, maintain, and stabilize the price of pork.2 Defendants implemented their conspiracy
`
`
`1 “Plaintiff”, as used herein, shall include assignors identified in Paragraph 15 where appropriate.
`2 For purposes of this complaint, “pork” includes all pork products, regardless of the form in which
`they are sold, and all products containing pig meat, whether purchased fresh or frozen, including
`but not limited to smoked ham, sausage, and bacon. In this complaint, “pork” and “swine” are
`often used interchangeably.
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 9:21-cv-82017-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/02/2021 Page 5 of 86
`
`
`
`by, among other things, coordinating with each other to restrict output and limit production, with
`
`the intended purpose and expected result of increasing and stabilizing pork prices in the United
`
`States. In furtherance of the conspiracy, Defendants exchanged detailed, competitively sensitive,
`
`and closely guarded non-public information about prices, capacity, sales volume, and demand,
`
`including through their co-conspirator, Defendant Agri Stats.
`
`4.
`
`Beginning at least as early as 2009 through the present, Agri Stats began providing
`
`highly sensitive benchmarking reports to the pork integrator Defendants. Benchmarking allows
`
`competitors to compare their profits or performance against that of other companies. However,
`
`Agri Stats reports are unlike those of other lawful industry reports. Agri Stats gathers detailed
`
`financial and production data from each of the pork integrator Defendants and their Co-Conspirator
`
`Indiana Packers, standardizes this information, and produces customized reports and graphs for
`
`the conspirators. The type of information available in these reports is not the type of information
`
`that competitors would provide to one another in a normal, competitive market.
`
`5.
`
`Agri Stats collected the pork integrator Defendants’ competitively sensitive supply
`
`and pricing data and intentionally shared that information through the detailed reports it provided
`
`them. On at least a monthly basis, and often far more frequently (e.g., weekly or every other week),
`
`Agri Stats provides the pork integrator Defendants with current and forward-looking sensitive
`
`information (such as profits, costs, prices, and slaughter information), and regularly provides the
`
`keys to deciphering which data belongs to which participant. The effect of this information
`
`exchange allowed Defendants to coordinate their anticompetitive conduct, monitor each other’s
`
`production, and thereby control pork supply and price in furtherance of their anticompetitive
`
`scheme.
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 9:21-cv-82017-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/02/2021 Page 6 of 86
`
`
`
`6.
`
`The data exchanged through Agri Stats is a classic enforcement and implementation
`
`mechanism of a price-fixing scheme. First, the data is current and forward-looking, which courts
`
`have consistently held has “the greatest potential for generating anti-competitive effects.”3 Second,
`
`the information contained in Agri Stats reports is specific to pork producers, including information
`
`on profits, prices, costs, and production levels—instead of being aggregated as industry averages,
`
`which provides transactional specificity and the easy identification of individual producers. Third,
`
`none of the Agri Stats information was publicly available. Agri Stats is a subscription service that
`
`required the pork integrator Defendants and the Co-Conspirators to pay millions of dollars over
`
`the Relevant Period—far in excess of any other pricing and production indices. Agri Stats ensured
`
`that its detailed, sensitive business information was available only to the pork integrator
`
`Defendants and the Co-Conspirators and not to any buyers in the market. Defendants utilized the
`
`information exchanged through Agri Stats in furtherance of their conspiracy to fix, raise, stabilize,
`
`and maintain artificially inflated prices for pork sold in the United States.
`
`7.
`
`While Defendants went to great lengths to keep the existence of the conspiracy a
`
`secret, they admitted in public calls that they had discussed production cuts at least once and
`
`publicly signaled to each other that no supply increases would happen. Furthermore, each
`
`Defendant engaged in acts in furtherance of the conspiracy by participating in such supply cuts
`
`and by limiting increases in supply that would not have otherwise occurred.
`
`8.
`
`In addition, there are numerous “plus factors” in the pork industry during the
`
`Relevant Period, including, but not limited to, multiple industry characteristics that facilitate
`
`collusion, such as vertically integrated operations, high barriers to entry preventing competitors
`
`
`3 Todd v. Exxon Corp., 275 F.3d 191, 2011 (2d Cir. 2001) (Sotomayor, J.) (quoting United States
`v. Gypsum Co., 438 U.S. 422, 441 n.16 (1978)).
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 9:21-cv-82017-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/02/2021 Page 7 of 86
`
`
`
`from coming into the market, high pork industry consolidation and concentration, inelastic supply
`
`and demand, and homogeneity of pork products (within each cut type).
`
`9.
`
`Defendants’ restriction of pork supply had the intended purpose and effect of
`
`increasing pork prices for Plaintiff. Beginning in or around 2009, the pork integrator Defendants’
`
`earnings began to increase, as they took an increasing amount of the profits available in the pork
`
`industry. As a result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct, Plaintiff paid artificially inflated prices for
`
`pork during the Relevant Period. Such prices exceeded the amount it would have paid if the price
`
`for pork had been determined by a competitive market. Thus, Plaintiff was injured by Defendants’
`
`anticompetitive conduct.
`
`II.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`10.
`
`Plaintiff brings this action under Sections 4 and 16 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C.
`
`§§ 15 & 26, for injunctive relief and to recover treble damages and the costs of this suit, including
`
`reasonable attorneys’ fees, against Defendants for the injuries sustained by Plaintiff by virtue of
`
`Defendants’ violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1.
`
`11.
`
`This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 & 1337,
`
`and Sections 4 and 16 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 15(a) & 26.
`
`12.
`
`Venue is appropriate in this District under Sections 4, 12, and 16 of the Clayton
`
`Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 15, 22 & 26 and 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), (c) & (d), because one or more Defendants
`
`resided or transacted business in this District, is licensed to do business or is doing business in this
`
`District, or because a substantial portion of the affected interstate commerce described herein was
`
`carried out in this District.
`
`13.
`
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over each Defendant because, inter alia, each
`
`Defendant: (a) transacted business throughout the United States, including in this District;
`
`(b) manufactured, sold, shipped, and/or delivered substantial quantities of pork throughout the
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 9:21-cv-82017-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/02/2021 Page 8 of 86
`
`
`
`United States, including this District; (c) had substantial contacts with the United States, including
`
`this District; and/or (d) engaged in an antitrust conspiracy that was directed at and had a direct,
`
`foreseeable, and intended effect of causing injury to the business or property of persons residing
`
`in, located in, or doing business throughout the United States, including this District.
`
`14.
`
`The activities of the Defendants and all co-conspirators, as described herein, were
`
`within the flow of, were intended to, and did have direct, substantial, and reasonably foreseeable
`
`effects on the interstate commerce of the United States.
`
`III.
`
`PARTIES
`
`A.
`
`Plaintiff
`
`15.
`
` Jimmy John’s Buying Group SPV, LLC (“Plaintiff”) or (“Jimmy John’s”) is a
`
`Delaware limited liability company with its principal place of business in Champaign, IL. Jimmy
`
`John’s owns and operates a chain of fast food restaurants in the United States. During the Relevant
`
`Period, Jimmy John’s negotiated and contracted with pork integrator Defendants for the production
`
`and supply of pork and pork products. Jimmy John’s also utilized distributors to supply its
`
`restaurants with pork and pork products purchased on their behalf pursuant to these negotiations
`
`and contracts. These distributors include Sysco Corporation and its affiliates (the “Assignors”).
`
`The Assignors, as purchasing agents for Jimmy John’s, have conveyed, assigned, and transferred
`
`all rights, title, and interest in and to all claims and causes of action arising out of or relating to the
`
`Assignors’ purchase of pork or pork products on behalf of Jimmy John’s from any supplier that
`
`the Assignors subsequently sold to Jimmy John’s during the Relevant Period. The “Assignors”
`
`refers to and includes their respective subsidiaries, affiliates, divisions, predecessors and assigns.
`
`During the Relevant Period, Jimmy John’s and/or its Assignors directly purchased pork or pork
`
`products on behalf of Jimmy John’s restaurants from one or more pork integrator Defendants,
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 9:21-cv-82017-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/02/2021 Page 9 of 86
`
`
`
`and/or their affiliates, agents, or co-conspirators, and suffered antitrust injury as a result of the
`
`violations alleged in this Complaint.
`
`16.
`
` Jimmy John’s is a “person” with standing to sue Defendants for damages and other
`
`relief under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1, and Sections 4 and 16 of the Clayton
`
`Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 15(a) & 26.
`
`B.
`
`(i)
`
`Defendants
`
`Agri Stats
`
`17.
`
`Agri Stats, Inc. is an Indiana corporation located in Fort Wayne, Indiana and from
`
`2013 until 2018, was a subsidiary of Eli Lilly & Co. Agri Stats is now a wholly owned subsidiary
`
`of Agri Stats Omega Holding Co. LP, a limited partnership based in Indiana. Throughout the
`
`Relevant Period, Agri Stats acted as a co-conspirator and has knowingly played an important and
`
`active role as participant in, and a facilitator of, Defendants’ collusive scheme detailed in this
`
`Complaint. Agri Stats has a unique and deep relationship with the pork industry generally, and
`
`specifically with each of the Defendants identified below, all of which are Agri Stats’ primary
`
`customers. Defendants Clemens, Hormel, JBS USA, Seaboard, Triumph, Smithfield and Tyson,
`
`and Co-Conspirator Indiana Packers, are all Agri Stats subscribers and report a wide variety of
`
`information to Agri Stats.
`
`18.
`
`All of Agri Stats’ wrongful actions described in this Complaint are part of, and in
`
`furtherance of, the unlawful conduct alleged herein, and were authorized, ordered, or engaged in
`
`by Agri Stats’ various officers, agents, employers or other representatives while actively engaged
`
`in the management and operation of Agri Stats’ business affairs within the course and scope of
`
`their duties and employment, or with Agri Stats’ actual apparent or ostensible authority. Agri Stats
`
`used the instrumentalities of interstate commerce to facilitate the conspiracy, and its conduct was
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 9:21-cv-82017-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/02/2021 Page 10 of 86
`
`
`
`within the flow of, was intended to, and did have, a substantial effect on the interstate commerce
`
`of the United States, including in this District.
`
`(ii)
`
`Clemens
`
`19.
`
`Clemens Food Group, LLC is a limited-liability company headquartered in
`
`Hatfield, Pennsylvania. During the Relevant Period, Clemens Food Group, LLC and/or its
`
`predecessors, wholly owned or controlled subsidiaries, or affiliates sold pork in interstate
`
`commerce, directly or through its wholly owned or controlled affiliates, to purchasers in the United
`
`States, including in this District.
`
`20.
`
`The Clemens Family Corporation is a Pennsylvania corporation headquartered in
`
`Hatfield, Pennsylvania and the parent company of Clemens Food Group, LLC. During the
`
`Relevant Period, The Clemens Family Corporation and/or its predecessors, wholly owned or
`
`controlled subsidiaries, or affiliates sold pork in interstate commerce, directly or through its wholly
`
`owned or controlled affiliates, to purchasers in the United States, including in this District.
`
`21.
`
`The Clemens Food Group, LLC and the Clemens Family Corporation are referred
`
`to here collectively as “Clemens.” Clemens reports a wide variety of pork data to Agri Stats,
`
`including, without limitation, highly-detailed, confidential information regarding its production
`
`and sales of pork.
`
`(iii) Hormel
`
`22.
`
`Hormel Foods Corporation is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Austin,
`
`Minnesota. During the Relevant Period, Hormel Foods Corporation and/or its predecessors, wholly
`
`owned or controlled subsidiaries, or affiliates, including but not limited to Hormel Foods, LLC,
`
`sold pork in interstate commerce, directly or through its wholly owned or controlled affiliates, to
`
`purchasers in the United States, including in this District.
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 9:21-cv-82017-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/02/2021 Page 11 of 86
`
`
`
`23.
`
`Hormel Foods, LLC is a Minnesota corporation headquartered in Austin,
`
`Minnesota. Hormel Foods, LLC is a wholly owned subsidiary of Defendant Hormel Foods
`
`Corporation. During the Relevant Period, Hormel Foods Corporation and/or its predecessors,
`
`wholly owned or controlled subsidiaries, or affiliates sold pork in interstate commerce, directly or
`
`through its wholly owned or controlled affiliates, to purchasers in the United States, including in
`
`this District.
`
`24.
`
`Hormel Foods, LLC and Hormel Foods Corporation are referred to here
`
`collectively as “Hormel.” Hormel reports a wide variety of pork data to Agri Stats, including,
`
`without limitation, highly-detailed, confidential information regarding its production and sales of
`
`pork.
`
`(iv)
`
`JBS
`
`25.
`
`JBS USA Food Company is one of the world’s largest beef and pork processing
`
`companies and a wholly owned subsidiary of JBS USA Food Company Holdings, which holds a
`
`78.5% controlling interest in Pilgrim’s Pride Corporation, one of the largest chicken-producing
`
`companies in the world. JBS USA Food Company is a Delaware corporation, headquartered in
`
`Greeley, Colorado, and reports a wide variety of pork data to Agri Stats, including, without
`
`limitation, highly-detailed, confidential information regarding its production and sales of pork.
`
`During the Relevant Period, JBS USA Food Company and/or its predecessors, wholly owned or
`
`controlled subsidiaries, or affiliates sold pork in interstate commerce, directly or through its wholly
`
`owned or controlled affiliates, to purchasers in the United States, including in this District.
`
`(v)
`
`Seaboard
`
`26.
`
`Seaboard Foods LLC is a limited-liability company headquartered in Shawnee
`
`Mission, Kansas, and is a wholly owned subsidiary of Seaboard Corporation. During the Relevant
`
`Period, Seaboard Foods LLC and/or its predecessors, wholly owned or controlled subsidiaries, or
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 9:21-cv-82017-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/02/2021 Page 12 of 86
`
`
`
`affiliates sold pork in interstate commerce, directly or through its wholly owned or controlled
`
`affiliates, to purchasers in the United States, including in this District. Seaboard reports a wide
`
`variety of pork data to Agri Stats, including, without limitation, highly-detailed, confidential
`
`information regarding its production and sales of pork.
`
`(vi)
`
`Smithfield
`
`27.
`
`Smithfield Foods, Inc. is incorporated in the Commonwealth of Virginia, and an
`
`indirect wholly owned subsidiary of WH Group Limited, a Chinese company. Smithfield Foods is
`
`headquartered in Smithfield, Virginia, and reports a wide variety of pork data to Agri Stats,
`
`including, without limitation, highly-detailed, confidential information regarding its production
`
`and sales of pork. During the Relevant Period, Smithfield Foods, Inc. and/or its predecessors,
`
`wholly owned or controlled subsidiaries, or affiliates sold pork in interstate commerce, directly or
`
`through its wholly owned or controlled affiliates, to purchasers in the United States, including in
`
`this District.
`
`(vii) Triumph
`
`28.
`
`Triumph Foods, LLC is a limited-liability company headquartered in St. Joseph,
`
`Missouri, and reports a wide variety of pork data to Agri Stats, including, without limitation,
`
`highly-detailed, confidential information regarding its production and sales of pork. During the
`
`Relevant Period, Triumph Foods, LLC and/or its predecessors, wholly owned or controlled
`
`subsidiaries, or affiliates sold pork in interstate commerce, directly or through its wholly owned
`
`or controlled affiliates, to purchasers in the United States, including in this District.
`
`(viii) Tyson
`
`29.
`
`Tyson Foods, Inc. is a publicly traded Delaware corporation headquartered in
`
`Springdale, Arkansas. During the Relevant Period, Tyson Foods, Inc. and/or its predecessors,
`
`wholly owned or controlled subsidiaries, or affiliates sold pork in interstate commerce, directly or
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 9:21-cv-82017-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/02/2021 Page 13 of 86
`
`
`
`through its wholly owned or controlled affiliates, to purchasers in the United States, including in
`
`this District.
`
`30.
`
`Tyson Prepared Foods, Inc. is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Springdale,
`
`Arkansas and is a wholly owned subsidiary of Tyson Foods, Inc. During the Relevant Period,
`
`Tyson Prepared Foods, Inc. sold pork in interstate commerce, directly or through its wholly owned
`
`or controlled affiliates, to purchasers in the United States, including in this District.
`
`31.
`
`Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc. is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Springdale,
`
`Arkansas and is a wholly owned subsidiary of Tyson Foods, Inc. During the Relevant Period,
`
`Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc. sold pork in interstate commerce, directly or through its wholly owned or
`
`controlled affiliates, to purchasers in the United States, including in this District.
`
`32.
`
`Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc., Tyson Prepared Foods, Inc. and Tyson Foods, Inc. are
`
`referred to here collectively as "Tyson." Tyson reports a wide variety of pork data to Agri Stats,
`
`including, without limitation, highly-detailed, confidential information regarding its production
`
`and sales of pork.
`
`C.
`
`Co-Conspirators
`
`
`33.
`
`Co-Conspirator
`
`Indiana Packers Corporation
`
`is an
`
`Indiana corporation
`
`headquartered in Delphi, Indiana, and reports a wide variety of pork data to Agri Stats, including,
`
`without limitation, highly-detailed, confidential information regarding its production and sales of
`
`pork. During the Relevant Period, Indiana Packers Corporation and/or its predecessors, wholly
`
`owned or controlled subsidiaries, or affiliates sold pork in interstate commerce, directly or through
`
`its wholly owned or controlled affiliates, to purchasers in the United States. Indiana Packers
`
`Corporation’s parent companies are Itoham Foods, Inc., Mitsubishi Corporation, and Mitsubishi
`
`Corporation (Americas).
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 9:21-cv-82017-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/02/2021 Page 14 of 86
`
`
`
`34.
`
`Various other persons, firms, and corporations not named as defendants have
`
`performed acts and made statements in furtherance of the conspiracy. Defendants are jointly and
`
`severally liable for the acts of their co-conspirators whether or not named as defendants in this
`
`complaint. Throughout this Complaint, Indiana Packers Corporation and the other persons, firms,
`
`and corporations not named as defendants that performed acts and made statements in furtherance
`
`of the conspiracy are collectively referred to as “Co-Conspirators.”
`
`IV.
`
`FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
`
`35.
`
`Starting at least as early as January 1, 2009 and continuing to the present,
`
`Defendants conspired to fix, raise, maintain and stabilize pork prices. To effectuate, maintain, and
`
`enforce their agreement, the pork integrator Defendants relied on a specialized industry data
`
`sharing service provided by Agri Stats, which served a critical role in Defendants’ price-fixing
`
`scheme. Defendant Agri Stats provided a means for the pork integrator Defendants to obtain and
`
`monitor critical and competitively sensitive business information regarding each other’s
`
`production metrics, thereby serving as a central and critical part of Defendants' price-fixing
`
`scheme, resulting in a stable and successful anticompetitive cartel.
`
`A.
`
`Agri Stats’ central role in collusion in the Broiler industry.
`
`36.
`
`Agri Stats has played a central role in collusion in other industries, including the
`
`Broiler chicken (“Broiler”) industry. As alleged in several Complaints in In re Broiler Chicken
`
`Antitrust Litigation, No. 16-cv-08637 (N.D. Ill.), the defendants in that action used Agri Stats to
`
`facilitate their conspiracy to restrain production and inflate prices of Broilers.
`
`37.
`
`Specifically, Agri Stats collected and disseminated to the defendants disaggregated
`
`financial information (such as monthly operating profit, sales and cost per live pound), production
`
`volumes, capacity, slaughter information, inventory levels, and sales data by finished product form
`
`and type, amongst other competitively sensitive business information. Agri Stats also provided
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 9:21-cv-82017-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/02/2021 Page 15 of 86
`
`
`
`detailed price reports to the Broiler industry through its subsidiary, Express Markets, Inc. (“EMI”).
`
`Agri Stats reports contained line-by-line entries for plants, lines, and yields of various Broiler
`
`facilities. Agri Stats relied upon (and the Defendants agreed to) a detailed audit process to verify
`
`the accuracy of data from each Broiler producer’s facilities, sometimes directly contacting co-
`
`conspirators to verify the data. Agri Stats collected data from the Broiler producers on a weekly
`
`basis and provided its reports to Broiler producers on a weekly and monthly basis.
`
`38.
`
`The detail of these reports ensured that the Broiler producers could decode the
`
`information of their competitors. The Broiler complaints allege it was common knowledge among
`
`Broiler producers that the detail of the Agri Stats reports allowed any reasonably informed
`
`producer to discern the identity of the competitors’ individual Broiler complexes and facilities.
`
`The Broiler reports, in parts, contained so few producers participating that the identities were
`
`obvious to the other producers. Other reports contained such detailed data that it could be matched
`
`with the publicly stated aggregate data for large Broiler producers. The complaints allege that Agri
`
`Stats purposefully circulated this information to top executives to facilitate agreement on supply,
`
`constraints, and price.
`
`39.
`
`In Broilers, plaintiffs also alleged that Agri Stats – known to its co-conspirators to
`
`be a willing and informed conduit for illicit information exchanges – used public and semi-public
`
`forums to convey messages to industry participants that furthered the purposes of the conspiracy
`
`by reassuring conspirators that production cuts would continue, and by inducing them to continue
`
`to act in concert to ensure they did. Agri Stats’ own statements in the Broiler industry facilitated
`
`implementation of the agreement to restrict supply.
`
`40.
`
`At the same time, Broiler producers relied on the purportedly “anonymous” nature
`
`of the reports to hide their conspiracy from the public. For example, plaintiffs in the Broiler
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 9:21-cv-82017-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/02/2021 Page 16 of 86
`
`
`
`complaints allege that Sanderson Farms CEO Joe Sanderson claimed, “[w]e use Agri Stats, which
`
`some of you are probably familiar with. Agri Stats is a benchmarking service that we submit data
`
`to. Almost everyone in our industry does as well. And we get the data back. It’s anonymous – the
`
`data is anonymous, so we don’t know whose numbers the numbers belong to, but we can see
`
`performance indicators all over the industry.”
`
`41.
`
`In denying defendants’ motions to dismiss in In re Broiler Chicken Antitrust
`
`Litigation, the district court noted that, given the nature of the Agri Stats reports, the co-
`
`conspirators were sharing future anticipated production information with each other, which raised
`
`significant antitrust concerns.4
`
`B.
`
`Agri Stats markets its collusive scheme to Defendants.
`
`42.
`
`Beginning in at least 2008, Agri Stats began to propose a series of benchmarks to
`
`the pork integrator Defendants similar to the benchmarks used to restrain competition in the Broiler
`
`industry. Benchmarking is the act of comparing practices, methods or performance against those
`
`of other companies.5 Benchmarking of the type undertaken by Agri Stats and the pork integrator
`
`Defendants reduces strategic uncertainty in the market and changes the incentives for competitors
`
`to compete, thereby enabling companies to coordinate their market strategies and otherwise restrict
`
`competition. This is especially true where benchmarking involves the exchange of commercially
`
`sensitive and typically proprietary information among competitors.
`
`43.
`
`In 2008, Greg Bi

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket