Case: 1:16-cv-08637 Document #: 4081 Filed: 12/04/20 Page 1 of 375 PageID #:275407
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
`EASTERN DIVISION
`
`
`IN RE BROILER CHICKEN ANTITRUST
`LITIGATION
`
`This Document Relates To:
`
`Commercial and Institutional Indirect
`Purchaser Plaintiff Actions
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Case No. 1:16-cv-08637
`
`
`The Honorable Thomas M. Durkin
`
`The Honorable Jeffrey T. Gilbert
`
`[PUBLIC REDACTED VERSION]
`
`DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO
`COMMERCIAL AND INSTITUTIONAL INDIRECT PURCHASER PLAINTIFFS’
`SEVENTH AMENDED CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`Commercial and Institutional Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs’ (“Plaintiffs”) filed their
`
`
`
`Seventh Amended and Consolidated Class Action Complaint (“Complaint”) on October 23, 2020.
`
`(Dkt. 3929.) This Court ordered Defendants to file a Consolidated Answer to the Complaint by
`
`November 23, 2020. (Dkt. 3836.) Subsequently, pursuant to Defendants’ Motion for an Extension
`
`(Dkt. 4046), the Court extended the deadline to answer to December 4, 2020. (Dkt. 4048.)
`
`Defendants Agri Stats, Inc. (“Agri Stats”); Case Foods, Inc., Case Farms, LLC, and Case Farms
`
`Processing, Inc. (collectively “Case”); Norman W. Fries, Inc. d/b/a Claxton Poultry Farms and a
`
`defendant erroneously sued separately as “Claxton Poultry Farms, Inc.” (collectively, “Claxton”);
`
`Harrison Poultry, Inc. (“Harrison Poultry”); House of Raeford Farms, Inc. (“House of Raeford”);
`
`Foster Farms, LLC and Foster Poultry Farms (collectively, “Foster Farms”); Koch Foods
`
`Incorporated, JCG Foods of Alabama LLC, JCG Foods of Georgia LLC and Koch Meat Co., Inc.
`
`(collectively, “Koch”); Mar-Jac Poultry, Inc., Mar-Jac Poultry MS, LLC, Mar-Jac Poultry AL,
`
`LLC, Mar-Jac AL/MS, Inc., Mar-Jac Poultry, LLC and Mar-Jac Holdings, Inc. (collectively
`
`“Mar-Jac,” as used in this Answer means Defendants Mar-Jac Poultry, Inc., Mar-Jac Poultry AL,
`
`

`

`Case: 1:16-cv-08637 Document #: 4081 Filed: 12/04/20 Page 2 of 375 PageID #:275408
`
`LLC, Mar-Jac Poultry MS, LLC, Mar-Jac AL/MS, Inc., Mar-Jac Poultry, LLC, and Mar-Jac
`
`Holdings, Inc. collectively, and in some contexts means at least one, but not necessarily all, of
`
`those Defendants); Mountaire Farms Inc., Mountaire Farms, LLC, and Mountaire Farms of
`
`Delaware, Inc. (collectively, “Mountaire”); O.K. Foods, Inc., O.K. Farms, Inc. and O.K. Industries,
`
`Inc. (collectively “O.K. Foods”); Perdue Farms, Inc. and Perdue Foods LLC (collectively,
`
`“Perdue”); Pilgrim’s Pride Corporation (“Pilgrim’s”); Sanderson Farms, Inc., Sanderson Farms,
`
`Inc. (Foods Division), Sanderson Farms, Inc. (Production Division), and Sanderson Farms, Inc.
`
`(Processing Division) (collectively, “Sanderson Farms”); Simmons Foods, Inc. and Simmons
`
`Prepared Foods, Inc. (collectively, “Simmons”); Tyson Foods, Inc., Tyson Chicken, Inc., Tyson
`
`Breeders, Inc., and Tyson Poultry, Inc. (collectively, “Tyson”); Wayne Farms LLC (“Wayne
`
`Farms”) answer and set forth their affirmative defenses to Plaintiffs’ Complaint as follows.1
`
`Defendants deny each and every allegation in Plaintiffs’ Complaint except as expressly admitted
`
`below.
`
`Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves individually and on behalf of a plaintiff
`class (the “Class”) consisting of all entities who purchased Broilers [Footnote 1] indirectly from a
`Defendant or co-conspirator in the United States during the Class Period for their own use in
`commercial food preparation, including institutional purchasers such as hospitals, nursing homes,
`and schools, at least as early as January 1, 2008, until the Present (the “Class Period”). Plaintiffs
`bring this action for injunctive relief under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, and for treble damages
`under the antitrust laws, unfair competition laws, consumer protection laws, and unjust enrichment
`common laws of the several States against Defendants, and demand a trial by jury.
`
`Complaint Footnote 1: “Broilers,” as defined in ¶ 124 herein and as used in this complaint,
`are chickens raised for meat consumption to be slaughtered before the age of 13 weeks, and which
`
`
`1
`For the purposes of this Consolidated Answer, all denials and admissions are only
`on behalf of the Defendants who have not settled with Plaintiffs. Thus, any answers on behalf of
`“Defendants” do not encompass Fieldale Farms, George’s, Inc. and George’s Farms, Inc., Peco
`Foods, or Amick Farms. Further, to distinguish Agri Stats from other Defendants who actually
`produced broiler chicken, answers on behalf of “Producer Defendants” do not include Agri Stats.
`Further still, “Producer Defendants” refers to any Defendant family that produces broiler chicken
`without specifying which entity within that family produces broiler chicken, and without
`conceding that they all do.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case: 1:16-cv-08637 Document #: 4081 Filed: 12/04/20 Page 3 of 375 PageID #:275409
`
`may be sold in a variety of forms, including fresh or frozen, raw or cooked, whole or in parts, or
`as a meat ingredient in a value added product, but excluding chicken that is grown, processed, and
`sold according to halal, kosher, free range, or organic standards.
`
`ANSWER: Defendants admit that Plaintiffs purport to bring this putative class action
`
`under the antitrust laws of the United States, but deny that Plaintiffs state a claim under those
`
`laws, have or can satisfy the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, and/or that
`
`Plaintiffs are entitled to any of the requested relief. Defendants deny any remaining allegations
`
`in this Paragraph.
`
`Complaint Footnote 1 contains Plaintiffs’ explanation of a defined term used in their
`
`Complaint, to which no response is required. To the extent Footnote 1 is deemed to require a
`
`response, Defendants admit that Plaintiffs have defined “Broilers” as described in Footnote 1.
`
`Further, to the extent that Footnote 1 incorporates and re-alleges allegations contained in
`
`Paragraph 124, Defendants incorporate and re-allege their answers to each allegation contained
`
`in Paragraph 124. Defendants deny any remaining allegations in Complaint Footnote 1.
`
`I. NATURE OF ACTION2
`
`Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon allege, that in order to maintain
`1.
`price stability and increase profitability, beginning at least as early as January 1, 2008, Defendants
`and their co-conspirators conspired and combined to fix, raise, maintain, and stabilize the price of
`Broilers. The principal (but not exclusive) method by which Defendants implemented and
`executed their conspiracy was by coordinating their output and limiting production with the intent
`and expected result of increasing prices of Broilers in the United States. In furtherance of their
`conspiracy, Defendants exchanged detailed, competitively sensitive, and closely-guarded non-
`public information about prices, capacity, sales volume, and demand, including through third party
`co-conspirator Agri Stats. Plaintiffs are further informed and believe that Defendants fraudulently
`concealed their anticompetitive conduct from Plaintiffs and the Classes for the states set forth
`below in furtherance of the conspiracy, and as a result there may be other methods by which
`Defendants carried out their conspiracy which presently are not known to Plaintiffs. For instance,
`it was not publicly known until November 2016 that certain Defendants and their co-conspirators
`apparently manipulated and artificially inflated a widely used Broiler price index, the Georgia
`
`
`2
`Defendants note that this, and any other header in the Complaint is not a factual
`statement to which any response is required. To the extent a response is required, Defendants deny
`any allegations contained in Plaintiffs’ headers.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case: 1:16-cv-08637 Document #: 4081 Filed: 12/04/20 Page 4 of 375 PageID #:275410
`
`Dock. Additionally, it was not publicly known until June 2020, when the Department of Justice
`(”DOJ”) announced the indictment of executives from Defendants Pilgrim’s Pride and Claxton,
`that certain Defendants and their co-conspirators apparently conspired to fix prices and rig bids for
`Broilers. [Footnote 2]
`
`Complaint Footnote 2: United States of America v. Jayson Jeffrey Penn et al., Crim. Action
`No. 20-cr-00152-PAB (D. Col. June 2, 2020), ECF No. 1.
`
`ANSWER: Pursuant to the Court’s September 22, 2020 Order staying bid-rigging claims
`
`and allegations (Dkt. 3835), the parties agree that Defendants shall not answer the last sentence of
`
`this Paragraph at this time. Defendants deny the conspiracy alleged in the Complaint and deny
`
`each remaining allegation in this Paragraph.
`
`Complaint Footnote 2 contains no factual allegations to which a response is required;
`
`however, Defendants deny that the purported case citation is accurate.
`
`Broilers constitute approximately 98% of all chicken meat sold in the United States.
`2.
`Defendants are the leading suppliers of Broilers in an industry with over $30 billion in annual
`wholesale revenue. The Broiler industry is highly concentrated, with a small number of large
`producers in the United States controlling supply. Defendants collectively control approximately
`90% of the wholesale Broiler market. Since the 1950s, the production of Broilers has become
`highly industrialized and commoditized.
`
`ANSWER: Defendants admit that Broilers (as that term is inaccurately defined in the
`
`Complaint)3 constitute a substantial portion of all chicken meat sold in the United States, but are
`
`without information sufficient to form a belief as to the precise percentage alleged in the first
`
`sentence of this Paragraph and on this basis deny the allegations in that sentence. Defendants
`
`admit that Producer Defendants are suppliers of Broilers, but are without information sufficient to
`
`form a belief as to the precise dollar amount of annual wholesale revenue alleged in the second
`
`sentence of this Paragraph and on this basis deny the allegations in this sentence. Defendants deny
`
`
`
`3
`For purposes of their Answer only, to the extent Defendants refer to “Broilers” in
`their Answer, Defendants refer to Broilers as inaccurately defined in the Complaint.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case: 1:16-cv-08637 Document #: 4081 Filed: 12/04/20 Page 5 of 375 PageID #:275411
`
`the allegations in the third sentence of this Paragraph. As the term “collectively control” in the
`
`fourth sentence of this Paragraph is imprecise, Defendants are unable to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the allegations contained in that sentence and on this basis deny the allegations in this
`
`sentence. As the term “highly industrialized and commoditized” in the fifth sentence of this
`
`Paragraph is imprecise, Defendants are unable to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations
`
`contained in that sentence and on this basis deny the allegations in this sentence. Each Defendant
`
`is without information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of any allegations in this Paragraph
`
`that relate to other Defendants and/or third parties, and therefore each Defendant denies the
`
`allegations in this Paragraph to the extent that they relate to other Defendants and/or third parties.
`
`Defendants deny any remaining allegations in this Paragraph.
`
`Historically, the Broiler industry was marked by boom and bust cycles where, in
`3.
`response to rising prices, producers increased production, which caused an oversupply and
`resulting decrease in pricing. However, that market pattern changed markedly in 2008. By their
`wrongful conduct as alleged in this complaint, Defendants not only materially reduced or
`eliminated the historical boom and bust cycle of the Broiler industry, they propped up Broiler
`prices during periods of rapidly falling input costs by, among other means, coordinating supply
`restrictions and manipulating one or more Broiler price indices.
`
`ANSWER: As the terms “boom and bust cycles” and “Broiler industry” in the first
`
`sentence of this Paragraph are imprecise, Defendants are unable to form a belief as to the truth of
`
`the allegations contained in that sentence and on this basis deny the allegations in this sentence.
`
`Defendants deny the allegations in the second sentence of this Paragraph. Defendants deny the
`
`allegations in the third sentence of this Paragraph. Each Defendant is without information
`
`sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of any allegations in this Paragraph that relate to other
`
`Defendants and/or third parties, and therefore each Defendant denies the allegations in this
`
`Paragraph to the extent that they relate to other Defendants and/or third parties. Defendants deny
`
`any remaining allegations in this Paragraph.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case: 1:16-cv-08637 Document #: 4081 Filed: 12/04/20 Page 6 of 375 PageID #:275412
`
`In 2007, Pilgrim’s and Tyson attempted to cut their production levels enough to
`4.
`cause industry prices to rise. However, despite Pilgrim’s and Tyson’s combined 40% market share,
`their production cuts in 2007 were not enough to increase prices through supply cuts because other
`Broiler companies increased their production.
`
`ANSWER: To the extent the allegations in this Paragraph relate to Pilgrim’s and Tyson,
`
`Defendants other than Pilgrim’s and Tyson are without information sufficient to form a belief as
`
`to the truth of those allegations and therefore deny those allegations.
`
`With respect to the allegations in this Paragraph, Tyson admits that in 2007, as in every
`
`year, Tyson adjusted its U.S. Broiler production based on its own business judgment of what is in
`
`its independent interest. Tyson denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to
`
`the truth of the precise figures set forth in the second sentence of this Paragraph, and on this basis
`
`denies those allegations. To the extent the allegations in this Paragraph relate to other Defendants
`
`and/or third parties, Tyson denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of these allegations and, therefore, denies the allegations.
`
`Pilgrim’s denies the allegations in the first sentence of this Paragraph and lacks knowledge
`
`or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in this
`
`Paragraph and therefore denies them.
`
`Defendants deny any remaining allegations in this Paragraph.
`
`As a result, in January 2008 Pilgrim’s and Tyson changed tactics and concluded
`5.
`that only through broader cooperation among major producers in the Broiler industry could supply
`be cut enough to force prices to increase. In January 2008, both Pilgrim’s and Tyson made clear
`to the Broiler industry that neither Pilgrim’s nor Tyson would continue to cut production while
`their competitors used the opportunity to take away Pilgrim’s and Tyson’s market share. A few
`days after attending an industry event in late January 2008, Tyson’s CEO announced Tyson would
`be raising prices because “we have no choice [but] to raise prices substantially.” A day later, a
`Pilgrim’s executive announced publicly that Pilgrim’s would be cutting its production and “the
`rest [] of the market is going to have to pick-up a fair share in order for the production to come out
`of the system.”
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case: 1:16-cv-08637 Document #: 4081 Filed: 12/04/20 Page 7 of 375 PageID #:275413
`
`ANSWER: To the extent the allegations in this Paragraph characterize or describe
`
`documents or other sources, Defendants deny any characterization or description that is
`
`inconsistent therewith.
`
`To the extent the allegations in this Paragraph relate to Pilgrim’s and Tyson, Defendants
`
`other than Pilgrim’s and Tyson are without information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth
`
`of those allegations and therefore deny those allegations.
`
`With respect to the allegations in this Paragraph, Defendants Tyson and Pilgrim’s deny the
`
`first two sentences of this Paragraph. Pilgrim’s and Tyson lack knowledge or information
`
`sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of any remaining allegations in this Paragraph and
`
`therefore deny them.
`
`Defendants deny any remaining allegations in this Paragraph.
`
`Subsequently, as described in detail below, the other Defendants followed Pilgrim’s
`6.
`and Tyson’s call to arms and made substantial cuts to their own production. However, unlike
`Pilgrim’s and Tyson’s prior production cuts, in 2008 the Defendants did not rely solely on the
`ordinary mechanisms available to temporarily reduce production, which would have permitted
`production to be quickly ramped up if prices rose. Instead, Defendants cut their ability to ramp up
`production for 18 months or more by destroying Broiler breeder hens in their Broiler breeder flocks
`responsible for supplying the eggs Defendants raise into Broilers. This destruction of the Broiler
`breeder flock was unparalleled and the consequences continue to reverberate in the Broiler industry
`to present day. Further, when some Defendants in 2010 became “undisciplined” and began
`gradually increasing their production, Defendants made a second wave of coordinated production
`cuts in 2011 and 2012, which included further substantial destruction of industry Broiler breeder
`flocks. Defendants continued to limit the United States Broiler supply in subsequent years by
`destroying eggs, relying upon one another’s production to meet customer needs, and exporting
`excess Broiler breeder flocks to Mexico, even when doing so was against their independent
`economic interest.
`
`ANSWER: Defendants admit that each Producer Defendant plans and executes its Broiler
`
`production each year based on its own, unilateral business judgment of what is in its independent
`
`interest. Defendants deny that any such production decisions were coordinated or made pursuant
`
`to a conspiracy or agreement. Each Defendant is without information sufficient to form a belief
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case: 1:16-cv-08637 Document #: 4081 Filed: 12/04/20 Page 8 of 375 PageID #:275414
`
`as to the truth of any allegations in this Paragraph that relate to other Defendants and/or third
`
`parties, and therefore each Defendant denies the allegations in this Paragraph to the extent that
`
`they relate to other Defendants and/or third parties.
`
`Pilgrim’s denies all allegations in this Paragraph related to Pilgrim’s and lacks knowledge
`
`or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of any allegations related to other
`
`Defendants or third parties and therefore denies them.
`
`Tyson admits that in 2008, 2011, and 2012, as in every year, Tyson adjusted its U.S. Broiler
`
`production based on its own business judgment of what is in its independent interest. To the extent
`
`that the allegations in this Paragraph relate to other Defendants and/or third parties, Tyson denies
`
`knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these allegations and,
`
`therefore, denies these allegations.
`
`Defendants deny any remaining allegations in this Paragraph.
`
`The consequence of Defendants’ cuts in 2008 and 2011-2012 has been a nearly
`7.
`50% increase in Broiler wholesale prices by one measure since 2008, despite input costs (primarily
`corn and soybeans) falling roughly 20% to 23% over the same time period. The rise in Broiler
`prices relative to input costs has led to record profits for Defendants.
`
`ANSWER: As this Paragraph does not specify the “one measure” of “Broiler wholesale
`
`prices” to which it refers, the unit, index, contract or other reference for corn or soybean prices
`
`(commodities which, among other places, are traded in a variety of contracts on public exchanges),
`
`or the precise “time period” over which “Broiler prices,” “input costs,” or “profits” are to be
`
`compared, Defendants are unable to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in this
`
`Paragraph and on this basis deny the allegations in this Paragraph. Each Defendant is without
`
`information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of any allegations in this Paragraph that relate
`
`to other Defendants and/or third parties, and therefore each Defendant denies the allegations in
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case: 1:16-cv-08637 Document #: 4081 Filed: 12/04/20 Page 9 of 375 PageID #:275415
`
`this Paragraph to the extent that they relate to other Defendants and/or third parties. Defendants
`
`deny any remaining allegations in this Paragraph.
`
`To effectuate their conspiracy, Defendants turned to a modernized version of an
`8.
`antitrust conspiracy in the Broiler industry during the 1970s. During the 1970s, major Broiler
`producers held a weekly conference call to discuss production levels and prices for Broilers. After
`the Department of Justice and civil antitrust plaintiffs sued, that practice was stopped. However,
`by January 2008, modern technology provided a way for Defendants to share detailed production
`and pricing information without industry-wide conference calls. Producers now electronically
`transfer vast amounts of production data to Agri Stats which, while supposedly anonymous, in fact
`provide Defendants with sufficient detail to determine with reasonable accuracy producer-level
`data on production, cost, and general efficiencies. This permits the Defendants to share, on a
`weekly and/or monthly basis, their confidential production and pricing information, including
`forward-looking production information, which is easily forecasted on Broiler breeder flock data
`that is reported and shared.
`
`ANSWER: Defendants admit that the Department of Justice filed an antitrust action
`
`against the National Broiler Marketing Association in 1973. Defendants deny the allegations in
`
`the first and second sentences of this Paragraph as to Defendants; to the extent that the allegations
`
`in these sentences relate to third parties, Defendants are without information sufficient to form a
`
`belief as to the truth of these allegations and therefore deny those allegations. Defendants admit
`
`that Agri Stats collects information from certain Producer Defendants and that Agri Stats has
`
`reported anonymized and historical information to certain Producer Defendants for pro-
`
`competitive benchmarking purposes. Defendants deny any remaining allegations in this
`
`Paragraph.
`
`From late 2014 into 2016, Broiler input costs fell significantly. Economic theory
`9.
`predicts that in a competitive market, all else being equal, Broiler prices similarly would fall.
`However, prices remained artificially inflated due to Defendants’ and their Broiler Co-
`Conspirators’ agreement to artificially restrict production and their manipulation of the Georgia
`Dock Broiler price index, published by the Georgia Department of Agriculture (“GDA”). The facts
`surrounding this episode were unknown to Plaintiffs and the public until November 2016, when it
`became public that the United States Department of Agriculture (“USDA”) had requested in July
`2016 that the GDA investigate and verify the accuracy of the Broiler prices provided to the GDA
`by several Defendants. When the GDA declined to do so, citing the industry’s and its own lack of
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case: 1:16-cv-08637 Document #: 4081 Filed: 12/04/20 Page 10 of 375 PageID #:275416
`
`interest in verifying prices, USDA began publishing its own Broiler price statistic, which
`confirmed that the Georgia Dock price was inflated over already supracompetitive prices.
`
`ANSWER: As the terms “Broiler input costs” and “[e]conomic theory” in the first and
`
`second sentences of this Paragraph are imprecise, Defendants are unable to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the allegations in those sentences and on this basis deny the allegations in those sentences.
`
`Defendants admit that the Georgia Department of Agriculture published the Georgia Dock Index
`
`during the Class Period,4 but otherwise deny the allegations in the third sentence of this Paragraph.5
`
`Defendants also admit that the USDA publishes certain data on Broilers.
`
`Perdue, OK Foods, Simmons, Mountaire, House of Raeford, Foster Farms, and Case deny
`
`that they submitted information to the Georgia Department of Agriculture for use in the Georgia
`
`Dock price index during the Class Period. Each Defendant is without information sufficient to
`
`form a belief as to the truth of any allegations in this Paragraph that relate to other Defendants
`
`and/or third parties, and therefore each Defendant denies the allegations in this Paragraph to the
`
`extent that they relate to other Defendants and/or third parties. Defendants deny any remaining
`
`allegations in this Paragraph.
`
`There are numerous “plus factors” in the Broiler industry during the Class Period
`10.
`including, but not limited to, the following: (a) extensive information sharing through Agri Stats,
`(b) numerous opportunities to collude in a variety of forums, (c) a coordinated change from
`contracts with fixed Broiler prices to Broiler prices that float with the Broiler spot market, (d)
`inter- Defendant trades and purchases that often are against independent self-interest, and (e)
`multiple industry characteristics which facilitate collusion, such as high vertical integration, high
`barriers to entry, high Broiler industry consolidation and concentration, inelastic supply and
`
`
`
`4
`For the purposes of their Answer only, to the extent Defendants refer to the
`“Georgia Dock Index” they are referring to the Georgia Dock Quoted Poultry Prices announced
`on Wednesdays by the Poultry Market News at the Georgia Department of Agriculture.
`
`5
`As of the filing of this Answer, the Georgia Department of Agriculture no longer
`publishes the “Georgia Dock Index.”
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case: 1:16-cv-08637 Document #: 4081 Filed: 12/04/20 Page 11 of 375 PageID #:275417
`
`demand, a lack of significant substitutes for Broilers, and a history of government investigations
`and collusive conduct.
`
`ANSWER: Denied.
`
`Defendants’ restriction of Broiler supply had the intended purpose and effect of
`11.
`increasing Broiler prices to Plaintiffs and the Classes. First, as Defendants themselves
`acknowledge, supply and demand in the Broiler industry are inelastic. Therefore, a coordinated
`decrease in supply as alleged herein necessarily will result in an increase in prices. As one industry
`consultant noted, “[b]ecause of the inelastic nature of the supply and demand [of Broilers,] a
`reduction in supply will produce an outcome more preferable to the industry than maintaining
`supply with a lower price.”
`
`ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations in the first, second, and third sentences of
`
`this Paragraph. To the extent the allegations in this Paragraph characterize or describe documents
`
`or other sources, Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the
`
`truth of those allegations and therefore deny those allegations; Defendants specifically deny any
`
`characterization or description that is inconsistent with the referenced sources. Defendants deny
`
`any remaining allegations in this Paragraph.
`
`Second, as acknowledged by industry experts and Defendants themselves, pricing
`12.
`in virtually all Broiler sales is tied to spot market prices, which are publicly known and available
`through industry price indices. An expert economist has testified that “internal [Defendant]
`documents show that virtually all chicken products, even if they’re not sold spot, are tied to the
`spot prices. . . .”
`
`ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations in the first sentence of this Paragraph. Each
`
`Defendant is without information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of any allegations in
`
`this Paragraph that relate to other Defendants and/or third parties, and therefore each Defendant
`
`denies the allegations in this Paragraph to the extent that they relate to other Defendants and/or
`
`third parties. To the extent the allegations in this Paragraph characterize or describe unidentified
`
`testimony by an expert economist, Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a
`
`belief about the truth of those allegations and therefore deny those allegations; Defendants
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case: 1:16-cv-08637 Document #: 4081 Filed: 12/04/20 Page 12 of 375 PageID #:275418
`
`specifically deny any characterization or description that is inconsistent with the referenced source.
`
`Defendants deny any remaining allegations in this Paragraph.
`
`Therefore, Defendants knew and intended that their coordinated limitation and
`13.
`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 herein.
`
`ANSWER: Denied.
`
`As a result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct, Plaintiffs and the Classes paid
`14.
`artificially inflated prices for Broilers during the Class Period. Such prices exceeded the amount
`they would have paid if the price for Broilers had been determined by a competitive market. Thus,
`Plaintiffs and Class members were injured by Defendants’ conduct.
`
`ANSWER: Denied.
`
`
`
`II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`Plaintiffs bring this state law class action on behalf of all the Classes to recover
`15.
`actual and/or compensatory damages, double and treble damages as permitted, pre- and post-
`judgment interest, costs, and attorneys’ fees for the injury caused by Defendants’ conduct in
`restricting the supply of Broilers and increasing the price of Broilers. Plaintiffs seek damages in
`excess of $5,000,000. Plaintiffs bring this action under Section 16 of the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C.
`§ 26) to secure injunctive relief against Defendants for violating Section 1 of the Sherman Act (15
`U.S.C. § 1). This Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1337, and Sections
`4 and 16 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 15(a) and 26.
`
`ANSWER: This Paragraph consists of Plaintiffs’ characterizations of their claims and/or
`
`legal conclusions, to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is required,
`
`Defendants admit that Plaintiffs purport to bring this action on behalf of the purported classes,
`
`under Section 16 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. §§15 and 26, but deny that Plaintiffs state a claim
`
`under the Sherman Act, have or can satisfy the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
`
`23, and/or are entitled to any of the requested relief. Defendants deny any remaining allegations
`
`in this Paragraph.
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case: 1:16-cv-08637 Document #: 4081 Filed: 12/04/20 Page 13 of 375 PageID #:275419
`
`Plaintiffs also assert claims for actual and exemplary damages and injunctive relief
`16.
`pursuant to state antitrust, unfair competition, and consumer protection laws, and seek to obtain
`restitution, recover damages, and secure other relief against Defendants for violation of those state
`laws. Plaintiffs and the Classes also seek attorneys’ fees, costs, and other expenses under federal
`and state laws. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action pursuant to 28
`U.S.C. §§ 1332(d) and 1367, in that: (i) this is a class action in which the matter or controversy
`exceeds the sum of $5,000,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and in which some members of the
`proposed Classes are citizens of a state different from some defendants; and (ii) Plaintiffs’ state
`law claims form part of the same case or controversy as their federal claims under Article III of
`the United States Constitution.
`
`ANSWER: Defendants admit that this Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of
`
`this action, and that Plaintiffs purport to assert claims for actual and exemplary damages and
`
`injunctive and other relief pursuant to various state laws. Defendants also admit that Plaintiffs are
`
`seeking attorneys’ fees, costs, and other expenses under federal and state laws. Defendants deny
`
`that Plaintiffs are entitled to any such relief, the conspiracy or conspiracies alleged in the
`
`Complaint, any and all allegations of wrongdoing by any of the Defendants, and the remaining
`
`allegations of this Paragraph.
`
`Venue is appropriate in this District under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), (c) and (d) because
`17.
`one or more Defendants resided or transacted business in this District, is licensed to do business
`or is doing business in this District, and because a substantial portion of the affected interstate
`commerce described herein was carried out in this District.
`
`ANSWER: Defendants admit that one or more Defendants reside, transact business or are
`
`licensed in this Dis