Case: 1:16-cv-08637 Document #: 3795 Filed: 08/31/20 Page 1 of 16 PageID #:260663
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
`EASTERN DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IN RE BROILER CHICKEN ANTITRUST
`LITIGATION
`
`
`
`Case No. 1:16-cv-08637
`
`
`
`Honorable Thomas M. Durkin
`
`This Document Relates To:
`
`THE DIRECT PURCHASER PLAINTIFF
`ACTION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MEMORANDUM REGARDING DIRECT PURCHASER PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION
`FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF THE SETTLEMENTS WITH DEFENDANTS
`PECO FOODS, INC., GEORGE’S, INC., GEORGE’S FARMS, INC.,
`AND AMICK FARMS, LLC
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case: 1:16-cv-08637 Document #: 3795 Filed: 08/31/20 Page 2 of 16 PageID #:260664
`
`Settling Defendants Peco Foods, Inc., George’s, Inc., George’s Farms Inc., and Amick
`
`Farms, LLC (“Settling Defendants”) submit this memorandum in connection with the Direct
`
`Purchaser Plaintiffs’ motion for final approval of the Settling Defendants’ settlements.
`
`PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
`
`Settling Defendants fully support the settlements and urge the Court to approve them.
`
`Settling Defendants submit this memorandum solely to address an issue relating to entities that
`
`requested exclusion from the class (i.e., “opt-outs”) for claims that Settlement Class Members
`
`partially assigned to them, which affects the calculation of the Settlement Amount, including the
`
`“Reduction of Settlement Amount Based on Opt-Outs” under the settlements with Peco Foods,
`
`Inc., George’s, Inc., and George’s Farms, Inc. (the “Peco and George’s Settlements”). (See ECF
`
`No. 3324, Exs. A and B at § II.E.10.b.)
`
`The Peco and George’s Settlements contain reduction mechanisms in the event that class
`
`members who opt out of the Settlement Class represent more than 50% of all Defendants’ United
`
`States total annual sales for 2008-2017. (See id.) These Settlement Agreements call for a reduction
`
`of 2% for each percentage point exceeding 50%. Thus, if it is determined that 50.6% of the class
`
`opts out, then the Settlement Amounts—$5.15 million for Peco and $4.25 million for George’s—
`
`are reduced by 1.2%. DPP Class Counsel, the Settlement Administrator, and the Settling
`
`Defendants have worked cooperatively to implement these portions of the Settlement Agreements.
`
`For the overwhelming majority of class members, the Settling Defendants have no reason to
`
`challenge the Settlement Administrator’s determinations.1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 The Amick Farms, LLC Settlement Agreement has a different settlement reduction mechanism
`and termination provision based on class members who opt out of the Settlement Class. (See ECF
`No. 3324, Ex. C at § II.E.10.b.)
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case: 1:16-cv-08637 Document #: 3795 Filed: 08/31/20 Page 3 of 16 PageID #:260665
`
`However, there is one category of purported opt-out requests that the Settling Defendants
`
`believe should be treated differently than they are currently being treated by the Settlement
`
`Administrator. The scenario at issue is demonstrated by the following:
`
`A direct purchaser of Broilers (e.g., a distributor) sells to multiple customers. The direct
`purchaser did not request exclusion from the class, and thereby is a Settling Class Member.
`However, one of the direct purchaser’s customers asserts that it has been given an
`assignment of claims from the direct purchaser, limited to claims arising from the purchase
`of Broilers re-sold to that particular indirect purchaser/assignee. The assignee requests
`exclusion from the class as to those partially assigned claims.
`
`
`If the claims that are partially assigned are treated as a valid opt-out, this scenario creates
`
`significant uncertainty. Without agreement from the assignor, assignee, Settlement Class, and
`
`Settling Defendants as to the value of the partial assignment opt-outs—which does not exist here—
`
`there is an open question about what portion of the direct purchaser’s claims are released and
`
`eligible for compensation under the settlements, and what value has been opted out through the
`
`partially assigned claims and thus represents potentially remaining liability. The issue raised in
`
`this response is limited to partial assignments, as distinct from full assignments where a direct
`
`purchaser has assigned 100% of its claims to an assignee. These partial assignment opt-outs are
`
`set forth in Exhibit B attached to the DPP’s proposed orders granting final approval to the
`
`settlements. (See ECF Nos. 3777-1 (Peco and George’s Proposed Order) and 3777-2 (Amick
`
`Proposed Order).)
`
`The Settling Defendants submit that, with one exception, the “partial assignment opt-outs”
`
`should be rejected. As courts have held, a partial assignee cannot opt out of a class action in which
`
`the assignor is participating, with one narrow exception explained more fully below. By rejecting
`
`partial assignment opt-outs where there is no express agreement reflecting a meeting of the minds
`
`as to the volume of commerce represented by any partial assignment, the court approving the class
`
`settlement establishes a clear record as to which claims are released by the settlement and which
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case: 1:16-cv-08637 Document #: 3795 Filed: 08/31/20 Page 4 of 16 PageID #:260666
`
`are not, and prevents future disputes about ambiguities regarding the court’s approval order.
`
`Consistent with these legal principles, the Court should enter the Settling Defendants’ proposed
`
`orders entering final judgment and granting final approval of the settlements. If the Court agrees,
`
`the opt-out percentage is less than 50% and the amounts of the Peco and George’s Settlements will
`
`remain at $5.15 and $4.25 million, respectively.
`
`Alternatively, if the Court were inclined to permit the exclusion of partially assigned
`
`claims, Settling Defendants respectfully submit that the final approval order should reflect the
`
`precise dollar value of the commerce being excluded from the settlements through each partial
`
`assignment so that all parties have a clear understanding of what has been released through the
`
`settlement and what potential liability remains.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`Following the Court’s December 20, 2019 order granting preliminary approval of the
`
`Settlements (ECF No. 3359), DPP Class Counsel and the Settlement Administrator implemented
`
`the Court-approved notice plan to members of the Settlement Class—i.e., entities that purchased
`
`Broilers directly from Defendants during the Class Period. As required by Federal Rule of Civil
`
`Procedure 23, the notice explained the binding effects of class membership and how to exclude
`
`oneself from the Settlement Class. The deadline to request exclusion from the Settlement Class
`
`was March 9, 2020. The Settlement Administrator reviewed and processed applications for
`
`requests for exclusion.
`
`Many of the entities that directly purchased Broilers from Defendants are food distributors
`
`who resold the Broilers to other entities, including restaurants and grocers. As DPP Class Counsel
`
`informed the Court through a publicly filed April 15, 2020 Notice, several of the opt-out notices
`
`received by the Settlement Administrator provided that they were submitted “with the intent to
`
`exclude certain assigned claims from other Class Members.” (ECF No. 3567 at 2.) In other words,
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case: 1:16-cv-08637 Document #: 3795 Filed: 08/31/20 Page 5 of 16 PageID #:260667
`
`these opt-out notices attempted to exclude from the class settlement, claims based on direct
`
`purchases of Broilers by direct purchasers that were later re-sold to the opt-out entity. (See, e.g.,
`
`Ex. A to Declaration of Nicci Warr (“Warr Decl.”) (attached hereto as Exhibit 1); see also Opt-
`
`Out Notices Deemed Invalid by Administrator (ECF 3757-8), Ex. F1.)2
`
`None of the opt-out notices alleging partial assignments from other Class Members
`
`provided any documentation regarding the alleged assignments or information about the volume
`
`of purchases that were allegedly assigned. (See DPP April 15, 2020 Notice (ECF No. 3567) at 3
`
`(“For each of these assignment of claims, the information provided is insufficient to determine
`
`whether a valid assignment of claims has occurred and, if so, the dollar value of the purchases
`
`being assigned.”).) Consequently, the Settlement Administrator contacted the parties seeking
`
`exclusion for partial assignments to inform them that to facilitate the validation of these partial
`
`assignment opt-outs, they would need to complete a Notification of Irrevocable Assignment
`
`confirming both the assignment and the value of the purchases assigned, as well as provide the
`
`Settlement Administrator with sufficient information to validate the value of the partial
`
`assignments of claims (the “stipulation process”). (See ECF No. 3757-9, Ex. G (template email
`
`and Notification of Irrevocable Assignment form).) The Notification of Irrevocable Assignment
`
`was designed to provide assurance that the alleged assignee and alleged assignor agreed that a
`
`partial assignment had occurred and the volume of commerce associated with the partial
`
`
`2 Some of these notices also requested exclusion of claims based on direct purchases by the opt-
`out entity. The exclusion of claims based on direct purchases is not at issue.
`
`In some instances, both the alleged assignee and the alleged assignor submitted an opt-out
`
`notice for the partially assigned claims. In other instances, only the alleged assignee submitted an
`opt-out notice. In these later instances, absent verification from the alleged assignor of the partial
`assignment, it is not clear whether there is agreement that any claims have been assigned, much
`less any agreement on the volume of claims.
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case: 1:16-cv-08637 Document #: 3795 Filed: 08/31/20 Page 6 of 16 PageID #:260668
`
`assignment. (See id.) The Notification expressly stated that by executing the form, the assignee
`
`and assignor represented that:
`
`We understand that we may be required to provide more information, including
`without limitation, transactional-level purchase detail in spreadsheet format (.csv,
`MS Excel, etc.) in order to validate the assignment purchase totals listed above;
`information supporting the validity of this assignment; and information to further
`identify assignee(s), assignor(s), and any subsidiaries or other related entities. We
`agree to provide such information.
`
`(Id. at 4.)3 No party filed any objection to this process with the Court.
`
`According to the Settlement Administrator, many of the partial assignment parties failed
`
`to engage in, much less complete, this stipulation process during the many months that it was
`
`available. (See ECF No. 3757-2, Declaration of Jennifer M. Keough (“Initial Keough Decl.”),
`
`¶ 27.) In some instances, the alleged assignee failed to provide sufficient information for the
`
`Settlement Administrator to even verify any assignment. (See Ex. 1 (Warr Decl.) ¶ 7.) In other
`
`instances, the alleged assignee failed to provide a stipulation regarding the value of assigned
`
`claims—i.e., they failed to return the Notification of Irrevocable Assignment—but provided other
`
`types of information from which the Settlement Administrator could attempt to calculate a value
`
`for the partial assignment. (See Initial Keough Decl. ¶ 27; Ex. 1 (Warr Decl.) ¶ 8.) In certain
`
`instances, the alleged assignee provided a signed Notification of Irrevocable Assignment, but the
`
`values ascribed to the partial assignment were deemed by the Settlement Administrator to be
`
`unreliable. (See id. (Warr Decl.) ¶ 9.)
`
`Settling Defendants understand that, in instances where no stipulated commerce values or
`
`unreliable stipulated commerce volumes were provided, the Settlement Administrator performed
`
`
`3
`In order to prosecute an assigned claim on an individual basis, a partial assignee must (1) prove
`their assignments (including validity and scope) and (2) provide a credible calculation of the
`volume of commerce associated with those assignments (in order to prove damages). The
`Notification of Irrevocable Assignment sought this same information.
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case: 1:16-cv-08637 Document #: 3795 Filed: 08/31/20 Page 7 of 16 PageID #:260669
`
`an independent calculation of the amount of the Settlement Class Member’s purchases ostensibly
`
`covered by the partial assignment. (See id. (Warr Decl.) ¶ 8.) The independently calculated
`
`volumes of the partially assigned purchases were incorporated into the opt-out rate presented by
`
`DPP Class Counsel. (See ECF No. 3757 (Motion for Final Approval) at 6; ECF No. 3777 (Notice
`
`of Filing of Amended Proposed Order & Opt-out Lists) at 2.) To Settling Defendants’
`
`understanding, the independent calculations of the Settlement Administrator have not been verified
`
`or approved by alleged partial assignors or assignees.
`
`One Settlement Class member partially assigning its claims, Testa Produce, and its
`
`assignee, El Pollo Loco, appear to have reached agreement among themselves and with the
`
`Settlement Administrator regarding the purchases of Broilers by Testa that were re-sold to El Pollo
`
`Loco and thus covered by the partial assignment. As to this partial assignment, there should be no
`
`dispute as to the volume of commerce associated with the partially assigned claims.
`
`Based on the above approach as implemented by the Settlement Administrator, the opt-out
`
`rate from the Peco and George’s Settlements is 50.6%. The Settlement Agreements call for a
`
`reduction of 2% for each percentage point exceeding 50%, resulting in net settlement amounts of
`
`$5,088,200 from Peco and $4,199,000 from George’s. Settling Defendants do not take issue with
`
`the underlying data used to calculate this opt-out percentage. But Settling Defendants do submit
`
`that, pursuant to well-established law, all partially assigned claims from Settlement Class Member
`
`assignors should be deemed invalid (with the exception of the claims Testa partially assigned to
`
`El Pollo Loco), and all claims based on purchases by those assignors should remain part of the
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case: 1:16-cv-08637 Document #: 3795 Filed: 08/31/20 Page 8 of 16 PageID #:260670
`
`settlement class. If the Court agrees with the Settling Defendants, the opt-out percentage would
`
`be below 50%, and there would be no reduction in the class settlement amount.4
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`A court’s review with respect to evaluating and ultimately approving a class action
`
`settlement extends to enforcing the terms of the settlement and overseeing and evaluating the
`
`notice process and method of claims processing. See Committee Notes to the 2018 Amendment
`
`(“Often it will be important for the court to scrutinize the method of claims processing to ensure
`
`that it facilitates filing legitimate claims.”); see also Snyder v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, No.
`
`14 C 8461, 2019 WL 2103379, at *10 (N.D. Ill. May 14, 2019) (finding that incomplete requests
`
`to opt out from a class action settlement were forfeited in light of the failure to follow the clear
`
`instructions of the class notice). Here, with the exception of the claims Testa partially assigned to
`
`El Pollo Loco, the Court should reject the requests to exclude partially assigned claims.
`
`I.
`
`Holders of Partially Assigned Claims from Class Members Are Not Generally
`Permitted to Opt Those Claims Out of the Class.
`
`As a general matter, assignment of antitrust claims is permitted. See, e.g., In re Steel
`
`Antitrust Litig., No. 08 C 5214, 2015 WL 5304629, at *4 n.3 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 9, 2015) (“[A]ny
`
`assignment of antitrust claims, as a matter of federal common law, must be an express assignment.”
`
`(quoting Gulfstream III Assocs., Inc. v. Gulfstream Aerospace Corp., 995 F.2d 425, 440 (3d Cir.
`
`1993))). Unlike other Class Members, however, assignees with only partial assignments do “not
`
`have the right to opt out.” In re Modafinil Antitrust Litig., 837 F.3d 238, 252 (3d Cir. 2016)
`
`
`4 Amick’s settlement reduction provision and termination provision was not triggered, pursuant
`to the calculations under that provision by the Settlement Administrator. It is believed that a
`recalculation under Settling Defendants’ legal theory would not change that result, but the
`calculation has not been performed. Regardless, as explained below, Amick would be prejudiced
`by permitting the partial assignments to be excluded from the class due to the lack of clarity
`regarding what claims are settled and what claims represent potential remaining liability.
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case: 1:16-cv-08637 Document #: 3795 Filed: 08/31/20 Page 9 of 16 PageID #:260671
`
`(quoting In re Fine Paper Litig. State of Wash., 632 F.2d 1081, 1091 (3d Cir. 1980)). Indeed,
`
`courts in this district have recognized that although “[c]lass members with individual claims for
`
`actual damages may always opt out of the class to pursue their claims separately[,] . . . [a] different
`
`rule applies . . . when a class member partially assigns its claim to a third party.” In re Opana ER
`
`Antitrust Litig., No. 14 C 10150, 2016 WL 738596, at *6-7 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 25, 2016) (agreeing with
`
`“the reasoning and the rule announced by the Third Circuit in Fine Paper”) (citation omitted). In
`
`that instance, “‘the rights of the obligor to be free of successive and repeated suits growing out of
`
`the same basic facts’ must be protected.” Id. at *7 (quoting In re Fine Paper, 632 F.2d at 1091).
`
`If the partial assignees were permitted to remove their partially assigned claims from the class “the
`
`settling defendants may well be uncertain as to their potential liability to” the partial assignees. In
`
`re Fine Paper, 632 F.2d at 1091. Preventing partial assignees from removing their partially
`
`assigned claims from the class prevents confusion about what claims have been released under the
`
`class action settlement and avoids the potential for double recoveries. See In re Opana ER, 2016
`
`WL 738596, at *7. The risk of potential uncertainty is particularly apparent in a case like this one,
`
`where the Peco and George’s Settlements include provisions that reduce the settlement amount
`
`depending upon the proportion of purchases associated with opt-outs. Thus, if the assignor does
`
`not otherwise opt out of the class, then all of the claims based on the assignor’s purchases
`
`(including those that are the subject of a partial assignment) should be released pursuant to the
`
`settlement. See id.
`
`Courts have recognized only one narrow exception permitted from this general rule—the
`
`circumstance when the assignor and assignee stipulate to the volume of commerce covered by the
`
`assignment. See In re OSB Antitrust Litig., No. 06-826, 2009 WL 129737, at *2, *4 (E.D. Pa. Jan.
`
`14, 2009) (parties conceded that partial assignee could opt out of a class following stipulation that
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case: 1:16-cv-08637 Document #: 3795 Filed: 08/31/20 Page 10 of 16 PageID #:260672
`
`partially assigned purchases totaled $4,454,127). That is because, where “the Parties stipulated to
`
`the value of the assigned claims, there is no possibility of confusion or multiple recoveries.” Id.
`
`at *4.
`
`II.
`
`The Narrow Exception to the General Rule Prohibiting Holders of Partially
`Assigned Claims from Opting Out Does Not Apply Because There is No
`Meeting of the Minds, With One Exception.
`
`Here, DPP Class Counsel and the Settlement Administrator followed a notice process
`
`designed to allow partial assignments consistent with this exception to the general rule: A
`
`Settlement Class Member could exclude certain assigned claims, provided that the class member
`
`submitted a notification of assignment executed by both the assignor and assignee and the claim
`
`administrator was able to validate the volume of the purportedly assigned claims intended to be
`
`excluded. One assignee (El Pollo Loco) with partial assignments from a Settlement Class Member
`
`appears to have satisfied these requirements.
`
`But as detailed above, the majority of alleged partial assignees did not provide a stipulation
`
`regarding the volume of partially assigned claims, despite being provided with notice and
`
`opportunity to do so. The partial assignment volumes calculated by the Settlement Administrator
`
`for these partial assignees reflect amounts to which the assignor class member and assignee opt-
`
`out have not stipulated. There is thus no meeting of the minds between the parties that are affected
`
`by the partial assignment—the assignee, the assignor, and the Settlement Class—for these claims.
`
`For the few assignees that did provide stipulated volumes of commerce, the Settlement
`
`Administrator deemed the stipulated amounts unreliable in light of the other data available and,
`
`therefore, performed an independent calculation of the partial-assignment volumes. Consequently,
`
`there is no meeting of the minds among all the relevant parties regarding these partial assignment
`
`amounts either. This approach does not provide the required clarity for all parties and could greatly
`
`prejudice the Settling Defendants. For example, if Hooters of America—which claims to have
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case: 1:16-cv-08637 Document #: 3795 Filed: 08/31/20 Page 11 of 16 PageID #:260673
`
`assignments from Class Members Ben E. Keith and Naturally Fresh—believes that the amount of
`
`commerce that was assigned is vastly larger than the amount calculated by the Settlement
`
`Administrator and adopted by the DPPs, then Peco and George’s will face an opt-out plaintiff
`
`asserting claims related to a volume of commerce much larger than the amount used to calculate
`
`the reduction for opt-outs. Yet Peco and George’s would not have received a reduction for that
`
`full volume of opt-out commerce, as they are entitled to receive under their Settlements. This
`
`concern is not merely theoretical: Settling Defendants understand that the calculations performed
`
`by the Settlement Administrator were, at least at times, performed on the basis of incomplete
`
`information (which may have been the best information available to the Administrator). (See, e.g.,
`
`Ex. B to Notice of Filing of Amended Proposed Order re Motion for Final Approval of Settlement
`
`(ECF No. 3777) at Request ID 15, 41, 47, 53, 63.) In addition, the mere fact that the Settlement
`
`Administrator did an independent calculation for stipulations deemed unreliable indicates a lack
`
`of agreement on the volumes of commerce associated with a partial assignment.
`
`Only El Pollo Loco’s partial assignment from Testa Produce apparently satisfies the
`
`requirement of a meeting of the minds. (See Ex. 1 (Warr Decl.) ¶ 11.) Assuming all necessary
`
`parties document the apparent agreement, Settling Defendants do not challenge this partial
`
`assignment.
`
`III. But for One Exception, the Court Should Reject the Partial Assignment Opt-
`Outs.
`
`The case law is clear that, unlike holders of claims based on direct purchases or fully
`
`assigned claims, holders of partially assigned claims cannot opt out of a class, unless the narrow
`
`exception identified above is fully satisfied. This rule ensures clarity about the most fundamental
`
`aspects of litigation, including what claims belong to whom, what claims remain at issue, and what
`
`claims are released through a settlement. Clarity on such issues is particularly important for large,
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case: 1:16-cv-08637 Document #: 3795 Filed: 08/31/20 Page 12 of 16 PageID #:260674
`
`complex litigation such as this one—involving hundreds of parties and multiple parallel putative
`
`classes. Clarity is also required to protect the Settling Defendants from potential double recovery
`
`and to effectuate the terms of the settlement for which they bargained.
`
`Consequently, the Court should hold that, with the exception of the claim partially assigned
`
`by Testa to El Pollo Loco, all partially assigned claims from a Class Member assignor to an opt-
`
`out assignee are invalid and those claims remain in the Settlement Class. These invalid partially
`
`assigned claims include all partially assigned claims from Alleged Class Member Assignors listed
`
`in Exhibit B to the Notice of Filing of Amended Proposed Order re: Motion for Final Approval of
`
`Settlement (ECF No. 3777), except those assignments from McLane and C&S Wholesale (the two
`
`alleged assignors that opted out of the Settlement Class entirely).
`
`In the event the Court does not agree with the Settling Defendants’ position, Settling
`
`Defendants respectfully submit that the final order should reflect the specific dollar value of
`
`commerce excluded through a partial assignment of a claim, as calculated by the Settlement
`
`Administrator, to prevent the morass of issues that will inevitably arise if there is not clarity on
`
`what claims have been released in the settlement and what claims have been excluded. See In re
`
`OSB Antitrust Litig., 2009 WL 129737, at *4 (permitting partial assignment opt-out only after
`
`approved stipulation from assignor and assignee as to assigned volume of commerce).5 Without
`
`an order specifying the volume of commerce associated with partially assigned claims, the parties
`
`will be left with no clarity as to what is in and out of the settlement, and Settling Defendants will
`
`
`5 The Settling Defendants have submitted proposed orders for each of these scenarios that track
`the orders submitted by DPP Class Counsel (ECF Nos. 3777-1 and -2) as closely as possible. The
`proposed orders adopting Settling Defendants’ legal analysis are attached hereto as Exhibits 2 (for
`Peco and George’s) and 3 (for Amick). The proposed orders incoporating the Settlement
`Administrator’s proposed calculations are attached thereto as Exhibits 4 (for Peco and George’s)
`and 5 (for Amick).
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case: 1:16-cv-08637 Document #: 3795 Filed: 08/31/20 Page 13 of 16 PageID #:260675
`
`face inappropriate risk of double recovery and will not obtain the benefit of their bargain under the
`
`Settlement Agreements.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`Settling Defendants respectfully request that the Final Approval Order state that, with the
`
`exception of the claim assigned to El Pollo Loco from Testa Produce, requests to exclude partially
`
`assigned claims from Settlement Class Members are rejected and that the opt-out rate and
`
`settlement reduction be calculated accordingly.
`
`Alternatively, if the Court were inclined to permit the exclusion of partially assigned
`
`claims, Settling Defendants respectfully submit that the Final Approval Order should reflect the
`
`precise dollar value of the commerce being excluded from the settlements through these partial
`
`assignments.
`
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case: 1:16-cv-08637 Document #: 3795 Filed: 08/31/20 Page 14 of 16 PageID #:260676
`
`Dated: August 31, 2020
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By: /s/ William L. Greene
`STINSON LLP
`
`William L. Greene (admitted pro hac vice)
`Peter J. Schwingler (admitted pro hac vice)
`Kevin P. Kitchen (admitted pro hac vice)
`50 South Sixth Street, Ste 2600
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`Telephone: (612) 335-1500
`william.greene@stinson.com
`peter.schwingler@stinson.com
`kevin.kitchen@stinson.com
`
`J. Nicci Warr
`7700 Forsyth Blvd., Suite 1100
`St. Louis, MO 63105
`Telephone: (314) 259-4570
`nicci.warr@stinson.com
`
`THE LAW GROUP OF NORTHWEST
`ARKANSAS LLP
`
`Gary V. Weeks (admitted pro hac vice)
`K.C. Dupps Tucker (admitted pro hac vice)
`Kristy E. Boehler (admitted pro hac vice)
`1830 Shelby Lane
`Fayetteville, AR 72704
`Telephone: (479) 316-3760
`gary.weeks@lawgroupnwa.com
`kc.tucker@lawgroupnwa.com
`kristy.boehler@lawgroupnwa.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendants George’s, Inc.
`and George’s Farms, Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`By: /s/ Boris Bershteyn
`SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE,
` MEAGHER & FLOM LLP
`
`Patrick Fitzgerald (#6307561)
`Gail Lee
`Peter Cheun
`155 N. Wacker Drive
`Chicago, IL 60606
`Telephone: (312) 407-0700
`Facsimile: (312) 407-0411
`patrick.fitzgerald@skadden.com
`gail.lee@skadden.com
`peter.cheun@skadden.com
`
`Boris Bershteyn (admitted pro hac vice)
`Lara Flath (#6289481)
`One Manhattan West
`New York, NY 10001
`Telephone: (212) 735-3000
`Facsimile: (212) 735-2000
`boris.bershteyn@skadden.com
`lara.flath@skadden.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendant Peco Foods, Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`DYKEMA GOSSET PLLC
`
`By: /s/ Howard B. Iwrey
`Howard B. Iwrey
`39577 Woodward Ave, Ste. 300
`Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304
`Telephone: 248-203-0526
`Facsimile: 248-203-0763
`hiwrey@dykema.com
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case: 1:16-cv-08637 Document #: 3795 Filed: 08/31/20 Page 15 of 16 PageID #:260677
`
`Steven H. Gistenson
`10 South Wacker Drive, Ste. 2300
`Chicago, IL 60606
`Telephone: 312-627-2267
`Facsimile: 312-876-1155
`sgistenson@dykema.com
`
`Cody D. Rockey
`2723 South State Street, Ste. 400
`Ann Arbor, MI 48104
`Telephone: 734-214-7655
`Facsimile: 734-214-7696
`crockey@dykema.com
`
`Dante A. Stella
`400 Renaissance Center
`Detroit, MI 48243
`Telephone: 313-568-6693
`Facsimile: 313-568-6893
`dstella@dykema.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendant Amick Farms, LLC
`
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case: 1:16-cv-08637 Document #: 3795 Filed: 08/31/20 Page 16 of 16 PageID #:260678
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on this 31st day of August, 2020, a true and correct copy of the
`
`foregoing document was electronically filed with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system,
`
`which will send notification to all counsel of record.
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Boris Bershteyn
`
`
`
`