Case: 1:16-cv-08637 Document #: 4244 Filed: 01/29/21 Page 1 of 434 PageID #:285940
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
`EASTERN DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`
`Civil Action No. 1:16-cv-08637
`
`Judge Thomas M. Durkin
`
` Magistrate Judge Jeffrey T. Gilbert
`
`FILED UNDER SEAL
`
`
`IN RE BROILER CHICKEN ANTITRUST
`LITIGATION
`_____________________________________
`
`THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO:
`
`All Direct Action Plaintiffs
`
`DIRECT ACTION PLAINTIFFS’ AMENDED CONSOLIDATED
`COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case: 1:16-cv-08637 Document #: 4244 Filed: 01/29/21 Page 2 of 434 PageID #:285941
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. 1
`
`
`I.
`
`II. CHART OF DIRECT ACTION PLAINTIFF CASES .......................................................... 3
`
`III. SUMMARY OF DAP FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS.......................................................... 52
`
`A. Overview of the Broiler Industry .................................................................................52
`
`B. Summary of Defendants’ Conspiracy ..........................................................................54
`
`C. Defendants’ Coordinated Supply Restrictions .............................................................55
`
`D. Defendants’ Manipulation of the Georgia Dock Price Index ......................................57
`
`E. Defendants’ Bid-Rigging Conduct ..............................................................................59
`
`IV. PARTIES ............................................................................................................................. 60
`
`A. Plaintiffs .......................................................................................................................60
`
`B. Defendants .................................................................................................................107
`
`1. Agri Stats ..........................................................................................................108
`
`2. Amick ................................................................................................................108
`
`3. Case ...................................................................................................................109
`
`4. Claxton ..............................................................................................................110
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`Fieldale ..............................................................................................................111
`
`Foster Farms......................................................................................................111
`
`7. George’s ............................................................................................................112
`
`8. Harrison.............................................................................................................112
`
`9. House of Raeford ..............................................................................................112
`
`10. Keystone Foods .................................................................................................113
`
`11. Koch ..................................................................................................................114
`
`12. Mar-Jac .............................................................................................................115
`
`13. Mountaire ..........................................................................................................116
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case: 1:16-cv-08637 Document #: 4244 Filed: 01/29/21 Page 3 of 434 PageID #:285942
`
`14. O.K. Foods ........................................................................................................117
`
`15. Peco ...................................................................................................................117
`
`16. Perdue ...............................................................................................................117
`
`17. Pilgrim’s Pride ..................................................................................................118
`
`18. Sanderson ..........................................................................................................118
`
`19. Simmons ...........................................................................................................119
`
`20. Tyson.................................................................................................................120
`
`21. Wayne ...............................................................................................................121
`
`22. Rabobank ..........................................................................................................121
`
`V. Producer Co-Conspirators .................................................................................................. 122
`
`A. Producer Co-Conspirator Allen Harim ......................................................................122
`
`B. Producer Co-Conspirator Marshall Durbin ................................................................124
`
`C. The Defendant Family Co-Conspirators ....................................................................124
`
`1. Koch ..................................................................................................................124
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Tyson.................................................................................................................130
`
`Perdue ...............................................................................................................130
`
`4. Wayne Farms ....................................................................................................131
`
`5. George’s ............................................................................................................131
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`Peco Foods ........................................................................................................132
`
`Pilgrim’s Pride ..................................................................................................132
`
`Foster Farms......................................................................................................134
`
`9. O.K. Foods ........................................................................................................134
`
`10. House of Raeford ..............................................................................................134
`
`11. Keystone Foods .................................................................................................136
`
`VI. NON-PRODUCER CO-CONSPIRATORS TIP TOP POULTRY, INC. AND SOUTHERN
`HENS, INC. ....................................................................................................................... 136
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case: 1:16-cv-08637 Document #: 4244 Filed: 01/29/21 Page 4 of 434 PageID #:285943
`
`VII. JURISDICTION AND VENUE ........................................................................................ 137
`
`VIII. TRADE AND COMMERCE ............................................................................................. 138
`
`IX. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS REGARDING DEFENDANTS’ UNLAWFUL
`CONSPIRACY .................................................................................................................. 141
`
`A. Production Cutting .....................................................................................................144
`
`1.
`
`In an Early Phase of their Conspiracy, Defendants Departed from Their
`Historical Practice by Collectively Reducing Breeder Flocks in
`Unprecedented Amounts ...................................................................................144
`
`2. Defendants’ Executives Publicly Decried the Effect of Oversupply on
`“Our Industry,” Telling their Competitors that Unified Action Was
`Necessary ..........................................................................................................146
`
`B. Defendants Begin to Cut Production in Concert........................................................149
`
`C. Defendants’ First Round of Chicken Production Cuts Included Unprecedented
`Reductions to Chicken Breeder Flocks......................................................................161
`
`D. Defendants Continued Their Conspiracy With a Second Massive Breeder Flock
`Cull in 2011 ...............................................................................................................164
`
`E. Drastically-Reduced Breeder Flocks Boosted Chicken Prices and Raised
`Defendants’ Profits to Record Levels ........................................................................177
`
`F. Defendants Utilized Urner Barry to Assist Them Capitalize on Their Supply
`Reduction Efforts .......................................................................................................184
`
`G. Defendants Capitalized on Their Prior Actual Reduction of Broilers to Coordinate
`a False Supply Reduction ..........................................................................................188
`
`H. Rabobank’s Role and Participation ............................................................................189
`
`I.
`
`J.
`
`The Conspiracy Also Included the Collusive and Fraudulent Manipulation of the
`Georgia Dock Price Index .........................................................................................193
`
`The PMN, the Georgia Dock, and the PMN Advisory Committee Were Created
`and Sustained for the Benefit of Georgia Dock Defendants and the Broiler
`Industry ......................................................................................................................201
`
`K. The Georgia Poultry Federation’s Role in Creating and Sustaining the Georgia
`Dock for the Benefit of Defendants and the Broiler Industry ...................................207
`
`L. The Georgia Dock Became Ripe for Manipulation ...................................................208
`
`M. Regulatory Investigation and Demise of the Georgia Dock ......................................212
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case: 1:16-cv-08637 Document #: 4244 Filed: 01/29/21 Page 5 of 434 PageID #:285944
`
`N. The Georgia Dock Price Index Diverged From the USDA Composite and Urner
`Barry Price Indices Beginning in 2011 ......................................................................215
`
`O. Defendants Fraudulently Submitted False and Inflated Quotes to the Poultry
`Market News, Causing the Index to Be Artificially High .........................................217
`
`1.
`
`Pilgrim’s Fraudulently Made False Submissions to the Georgia Dock ............219
`
`2. Koch Fraudulently Made False Submissions to the Georgia Dock ..................227
`
`3. Mar-Jac Fraudulently Made False Submissions to the Georgia Dock ..............230
`
`4. Harrison Fraudulently Made False Submissions to the Georgia Dock .............233
`
`5.
`
`Sanderson Farms Fraudulently Made False Submissions to the Georgia
`Dock ..................................................................................................................238
`
`6.
`
`Tyson Fraudulently Made False Submissions to the Georgia Dock .................241
`
`7. Claxton Fraudulently Made False Submissions to the Georgia Dock ..............243
`
`8. Wayne Farms Fraudulently Made False Submissions to the Georgia
`Dock ..................................................................................................................246
`
`9.
`
`Fieldale Farms Also Made False Submissions to the Georgia Dock ................248
`
`P. The Georgia Dock Defendants Fraudulently Failed to Inform the Plaintiffs with
`Which They Did Business of their Control Over the Georgia Dock, Their Ability
`to Manipulate the Georgia Dock, and Their Actual Manipulation of the Georgia
`Dock ...........................................................................................................................251
`
`Q. The Georgia Dock Defendants Made Fraudulent Misrepresentations to Plaintiffs
`by Stating that the Georgia Dock Reflected the Broiler Chicken Market .................256
`
`R. Plaintiffs Were Harmed by the Georgia Dock Defendants’ Fraudulent
`Submissions, Omissions, and Misrepresentations .....................................................259
`
`S. Defendants Had Both the Motive and Opportunity to Perpetrate the Fraud and
`Specifically Intended To Do So .................................................................................260
`
`T. Defendants Engaged in a Pattern of Racketeering Activity as Part of the Conduct
`of an Enterprise’s Affairs...........................................................................................262
`
`U. The Georgia Dock Defendants Did Not Contract with Plaintiffs in Good Faith .......264
`
`V. Defendants used the Georgia Dock Manipulation To Impact Higher Prices
`Charged to Contract Purchasers.................................................................................266
`
`W. Defendants’ Bid-Rigging Conduct ............................................................................267
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case: 1:16-cv-08637 Document #: 4244 Filed: 01/29/21 Page 6 of 434 PageID #:285945
`
`X. The Structure and Characteristics of the Chicken Market Make it Highly
`Susceptible to Collusion ............................................................................................271
`
`Y. Defendants Collusively Adopted Additional Strategies to Reinforce Their
`Conspiracy .................................................................................................................287
`
`Z. Agri Stats Actively Facilitated Defendants’ Conspiratorial Communications And
`Provided Data Necessary To Effectuate, Monitor, And Enforce The Conspiracy ....293
`
`AA. Plaintiffs’ Claims are Timely .....................................................................................310
`
`X. ANTITRUST IMPACT ..................................................................................................... 318
`
`XI. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF AND CAUSES OF ACTION ..................................................... 318
`
`COUNT I VIOLATION OF 15 U.S.C. § 1 (AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS) ...............318
`
`COUNT II VIOLATION OF 15 U.S.C. § 1 .......................................................................321
`
`COUNT III VIOLATION OF 15 U.S.C. § 1 (AGAINST THE GEORGIA DOCK
`DEFENDANTS FOR PRICE-FIXING) ....................................................................323
`
`COUNT IV VIOLATION OF GA. CODE ANN. §§ 16-14-4(a) AND 16-14-6
`(GEORGIA RICO) (AGAINST THE GEORGIA DOCK DEFENDANTS FOR
`ACQUIRING MONEY THROUGH RACKETEERING ACTIVITY) ....................325
`
`COUNT V VIOLATION OF GA. CODE ANN. §§ 16-14-4(b) AND 16-14-6
`(GEORGIA RICO) (AGAINST THE GEORGIA DOCK DEFENDANTS FOR
`CONDUCTING ENTERPRISE THROUGH RACKETEERING ACTIVITY) .......330
`
`COUNT VI VIOLATION OF 18 U.S.C. §§ 1962(c) AND 1964(c) (FEDERAL RICO)
`(AGAINST THE GEORGIA DOCK DEFENDANTS) ............................................336
`
`COUNT VII CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD (AGAINST THE GEORGIA DOCK
`DEFENDANTS) ........................................................................................................341
`
`COUNT VIII FRAUD (AGAINST THE GEORGIA DOCK DEFENDANTS) ................342
`
`COUNT IX NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION (AGAINST THE GEORGIA
`DOCK DEFENDANTS) ...........................................................................................342
`
`COUNT X VIOLATION OF THE FLORIDA DECEPTIVE AND UNFAIR TRADE
`PRACTICES ACT (AGAINST SANDERSON) ......................................................343
`
`COUNT XI BREACH OF CONTRACT (AGAINST SANDERSON) .............................345
`
`COUNT XII BREACH OF IMPLIED COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR
`DEALING (AGAINST SANDERSON) ...................................................................346
`
`v
`
`

`

`Case: 1:16-cv-08637 Document #: 4244 Filed: 01/29/21 Page 7 of 434 PageID #:285946
`
`COUNT XIII UNJUST ENRICHMENT (AGAINST SANDERSON) .............................347
`
`COUNT XIV VIOLATION OF THE WISCONSIN ANTITRUST ACT .........................348
`
`COUNT XV VIOLATION OF THE TENNESSEE TRADE PRACTICES ACT .............351
`
`COUNT XVI COMMON LAW FRAUD (AGAINST THE GEORGIA DOCK
`DEFENDANTS) ........................................................................................................353
`
`COUNT XVII BREACH OF THE IMPLIED COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH AND
`FAIR DEALING (AGAINST ALL GEORGIA DOCK DEFENDANTS) ...............357
`
`COUNT XVIII NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION (AGAINST THE GEORGIA
`DOCK DEFENDANTS) ...........................................................................................358
`
`COUNT XIX UNJUST ENRICHMENT (AGAINST THE GEORGIA DOCK
`DEFENDANTS) ........................................................................................................360
`
`COUNT XX VIOLATION OF S.C. CODE ANN §§ 39-3-10, ET SEQ. (AGAINST
`ALL DEFENDANTS) ...............................................................................................361
`
`COUNT XXI VIOLATION OF S.C. CODE ANN §§ 39-35, ET SEQ. (AGAINST ALL
`DEFENDANTS) ........................................................................................................362
`
`COUNT XXII VIOLATION OF FLORIDA DECEPTIVE AND UNFAIR TRADE
`PRACTICES ACT, FLA. STAT. § 501.201(2), ET SEQ. (AGAINST ALL
`DEFENDANTS) ........................................................................................................364
`
`COUNT XXIII VIOLATION OF ARIZONA’S UNIFORM STATE ANTITRUST
`ACT, ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 44-1401, ET SEQ. (AGAINST ALL
`DEFENDANTS) ........................................................................................................365
`
`COUNT XXIV VIOLATION OF ILLINOIS ANTITRUST ACT, 740 Ill. COMP.
`STAT. ANN. 10/1 (AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS) ............................................366
`
`COUNT XXV VIOLATION OF THE MINNESOTA ANTITRUST LAW, MINN.
`STAT. §325D.49, ET SEQ. (AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS) ..............................367
`
`COUNT XXVI VIOLATION OF THE NEW MEXICO ANTITRUST ACT, N.M.
`STAT. ANN. §§ 57-1-15, ET SEQ. (AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS) ..................368
`
`COUNT XXVII VIOLATION OF SECTION 340 OF THE NEW YORK GENERAL
`BUSINESS LAW (AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS) .............................................369
`
`COUNT XXVIII VIOLATION OF THE ILLINOIS CONSUMER FRAUD AND
`DECEPTIVE BUSINESS PRACTICES ACT, 815 ILL. COMP. STAT. ANN.
`505/10a, ET SEQ. (AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS) .............................................370
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Case: 1:16-cv-08637 Document #: 4244 Filed: 01/29/21 Page 8 of 434 PageID #:285947
`
`COUNT XXIX VIOLATION OF THE MINNESOTA CONSUMER FRAUD ACT,
`MINN. STAT. § 325F.68, ET SEQ. (AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS) .................371
`
`COUNT XXX VIOLATION OF THE NEW MEXICO UNFAIR PRACTICES ACT,
`N.M. STAT. ANN. §§ 57-12-3, ET SEQ. (AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS) ........372
`
`COUNT XXXI VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA’S CARTWRIGHT ACT, CAL. BUS
`& PROF. CODE §16700, ET SEQ (AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS) ...................374
`
`COUNT XXXII VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA’S UNFAIR COMPETITION LAW,
`CAL. BUS & PROF. CODE § 17200, ET SEQ. (AGAINST ALL
`DEFENDANTS) ........................................................................................................375
`
`COUNT XXXIII VIOLATION OF ALABAMA ANTITRUST LAW, ALABAMA
`CODE §§ 6-5-60, ET SEQ. (AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS)...............................377
`
`COUNT XXXIV VIOLATION OF THE COLORADO CONSUMER PROTECTION
`ACT, COLO. REV. STAT., §§ 6-1-101, ET SEQ. (AGAINST ALL
`DEFENDANTS) ........................................................................................................378
`
`COUNT XXXV VIOLATION OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ANTITRUST
`ACT, D.C. CODE § 28-4501, ET SEQ. (AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS) ...........380
`
`COUNT XXXVI VIOLATION OF HAWAII ANTITRUST LAWS, HAWAII REV.
`STAT. § 480, ET SEQ. (AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS) .....................................381
`
`COUNT XXXVII VIOLATION OF THE MAINE’S ANTITRUST STATUTE, ME.
`REV. STAT. ANN. TIT. 10 § 1101, ET SEQ. (AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS) .382
`
`COUNT XXXVIII VIOLATION OF THE MICHIGAN ANTITRUST REFORM ACT,
`MICH. COMP. LAWS § 445.771, ET SEQ. (AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS) ....384
`
`COUNT XXXIX VIOLATION OF THE MISSOURI MERCHANDISING
`PRACTICES ACT, MO. ANN. STAT. § 407.010, ET SEQ. (AGAINST ALL
`DEFENDANTS) ........................................................................................................385
`
`COUNT XL VIOLATION OF THE NEVADA UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES ACT,
`NEV. REV. STAT. § 598A.010, ET SEQ. (AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS) .......386
`
`COUNT XLI VIOLATION OF THE NEVADA DECEPTIVE TRADE PRACTICES
`ACT, NEV. REV. STAT. § 598.0903, ET SEQ. (AGAINST ALL
`DEFENDANTS) ........................................................................................................388
`
`COUNT XLII VIOLATION OF THE NORTH CAROLINA UNFAIR TRADE AND
`BUSINESS PRACTICES ACT, N.C. GEN. STAT. § 75-1, ET SEQ. (AGAINST
`ALL DEFENDANTS) ...............................................................................................389
`
`vii
`
`

`

`Case: 1:16-cv-08637 Document #: 4244 Filed: 01/29/21 Page 9 of 434 PageID #:285948
`
`COUNT XLIII VIOLATION OF THE RHODE ISLAND ANTITRUST ACT, R.I.
`GEN. LAWS ANN. §6-36-1, ET SEQ. (AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS) ............391
`
`COUNT XLIV VIOLATION OF THE UTAH ANTITRUST ACT, UTAH CODE
`ANN. § 76-10-911, ET SEQ. (AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS) ............................392
`
`COUNT XLV VIOLATION OF VIRGINIA CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, VA
`CODE ANN. § 59.1, ET SEQ. (AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS)..........................394
`
`COUNT XLVI VIOLATION OF THE KANSAS RESTRAINT OF TRADE ACT,
`KANS. STAT. ANN. § 50-101, ET SEQ. (AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS) ........395
`
`COUNT XLVII VIOLATION OF THE NEBRASKA JUNKIN ACT, NEB. REV.
`STAT. § 59-801, ET SEQ. (AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS) ................................397
`
`COUNT XLVIII VIOLATION OF THE NEBRASKA CONSUMER PROTECTION
`ACT, NEB. REV. STAT. §59-1602, ET SEQ. (AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS) .398
`
`COUNT XLIX VIOLATION OF NEW HAMPSHIRE’S CONSUMER PROTECTION
`ACT, N.H. REV. STAT. ANN. TIT. XXXI, 358-A, ET SEQ. (AGAINST ALL
`DEFENDANTS) ........................................................................................................400
`
`COUNT L UNJUST ENRICHMENT (AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS) .......................402
`
`COUNT LI VIOLATION OF THE TENNESSEE TRADE PRACTICES ACT, TENN.
`CODE, § 47-25-101, ET SEQ. ..................................................................................402
`
`COUNT LII VIOLATION OF WISCONSIN ANTITRUST ACT, WIS. STAT. ANN. §
`133.18(1)(1), ET SEQ................................................................................................404
`
`COUNT LIII VIOLATION OF 15 U.S.C. § 1 (AGAINST CASE, CLAXTON, KOCH,
`MAR-JAC, PERDUE, PILGRIM’S PRIDE, SIMMONS, TYSON, AND WAYNE
`FOR BID-RIGGING – PLED IN THE ALTERNATIVE TO COUNT I) ................406
`
`COUNT LIV VIOLATION OF 15 U.S.C. § 1 (AGAINST CLAXTON, HARRISON,
`KOCH, MAR-JAC, PILGRIM’S PRIDE, AND TYSON FOR BID RIGGING –
`PLED IN THE ALTERNATIVE TO COUNT I) ......................................................410
`
`COUNT LV VIOLATION OF 15 U.S.C. § 1 (AGAINST GEORGE’S, KOCH,
`PERDUE, PILGRIM’S PRIDE, AND TYSON FOR BID RIGGING – PLED IN
`THE ALTERNATIVE TO COUNT I) ......................................................................411
`
`COUNT LVI BREACH OF CONTRACT (AGAINST TYSON AND TYSON SALES
`AND DISTRIBUTION, INC.) ..................................................................................412
`
`COUNT LVII VIOLATION OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA UNFAIR TRADE
`PRACTICES ACT, S.C. CODE ANN. §§ 39-5-10, ET SEQ. ...................................414
`
`viii
`
`

`

`Case: 1:16-cv-08637 Document #: 4244 Filed: 01/29/21 Page 10 of 434 PageID #:285949
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Pursuant to this Court’s orders to file “a consolidated complaint” [ECF Nos. 3778, 3653,
`
`3525] that “will contain all the allegations all the Direct-Action Plaintiffs make against all
`
`Defendants, and will function as an amendment to some of the complaints” [ECF No. 3526 at n.2],
`
`Direct Action Plaintiffs (“DAPs” or “Plaintiffs”)1 submit this compilation of the allegations of the
`
`various DAP complaints filed as of October 21, 2020.2 DAPs have attempted to set forth here all
`
`material factual allegations in each DAP’s complaint and have listed each Plaintiff’s (i) claims, (ii)
`
`defendants whom it has sued, (iii) and named Co-Conspirators.
`
`DAPs filed the original consolidated complaint [ECF Nos. 3924, 3922], and this amended
`
`consolidated complaint, in accordance with the Court’s direction, “to streamline the pleadings so
`
`that there is only one complaint and one answer on the docket for the Court and parties to reference,
`
`rather than over 100 separate direct-action complaints.” [ECF No. 4139 at 5] As the Court has
`
`explained, “the purpose of the consolidated complaint is not to force any individual plaintiff to
`
`concede or make any allegation or claim.” Id.
`
`Where multiple DAPs allege similar factual allegations but do not use identical language
`
`in making those allegations, this pleading lists the factual allegation once rather than reproducing
`
`multiple iterations of similar factual allegations. Because of differences in the underlying DAP
`
`complaints, certain factual allegations may only relate or be material to the claims of certain DAPs,
`
`but all factual allegations have nonetheless been included in the combined factual recitation
`
`
`1
`Given the consolidated nature of this complaint, the plural usage of the term
`“Plaintiffs” is used throughout to generally describe one or more DAP but should not be construed
`to necessarily refer to all DAPs for purposes of all factual allegations or legal causes of action as
`explained infra in this document.
`
`2
`DAPs objected to filing a consolidated complaint [ECF No. 3625], and maintain
`those objections for all purposes, including any appeals.
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case: 1:16-cv-08637 Document #: 4244 Filed: 01/29/21 Page 11 of 434 PageID #:285950
`
`pursuant to this Court’s orders. DAPs join in the factual allegations made in this pleading only to
`
`the extent consistent with their individual claims, and do not necessarily adopt the allegations,
`
`theories or legal positions of other DAPs.
`
`Although this document compiles the factual allegations, DAPs have abided by the Court’s
`
`order [ECF No. 3778] that “the parties are prohibited from using the preparation of consolidated
`
`pleadings as a vehicle for amending their pleadings.” See also ECF No. 4139 at 5-6. DAPs
`
`understand the Court’s orders to preserve the independent legal existence of each DAP case.
`
`The submission of this consolidated complaint should not be construed as a waiver or
`
`relinquishment of any DAP’s rights, including the due-process right to proceed outside of the
`
`putative class in this case and to prosecute claims separately in a direct action with counsel of each
`
`DAP’s choosing. DAPs have not filed identical complaints and, in many instances, have sued
`
`different defendants and asserted different claims. 3 By compiling the factual allegations and
`
`claims from the various complaints pursuant to this Court’s order, DAPs do not concede that
`
`consolidation beyond that permitted by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure would be proper,
`
`especially for trial.4
`
`
`3
`For example, some DAPs chose not to sue certain Defendants sued by other DAPs.
`Some DAPs’ claims are based in whole or in part on the Georgia Dock Price Index in their supply
`agreements with certain Defendants; others are not. Some DAPs asserted state-law claims that are
`specific to their particular geographic locations; others did not. Some DAPs decided to include
`RICO claims in their complaint; many did not. Many DAPs filed only Sherman Act claims. Others
`included state law claims, and some include indirect purchaser claims in their complaints. Each
`DAP has performed its legal analysis of the causes of action applicable to it based on the facts
`specific to each DAP.
`
`4
`In submitting this pleading, DAPs continue to maintain their “separate legal
`existence” and object to any loss of their individual due process rights. In re Fluidmaster, 149
`F.Supp.3d 940, 947 (N.D. Ill. 2016) (quoting In re Refrigerant Compressors Antitrust Litig., 731
`F.3d 586, 590-91 (6th Cir. 2013)); In re Zimmer Nexgen Knee Implant Prods. Liab. Litig., MDL
`2272, 2012 WL 3582708, at *3 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 16, 2012) (collecting cases that state that “a master
`or consolidated complaint is a procedural device used to promote judicial efficiency and economy,
`not to be given the same effect as an ordinary complaint or considered to merge the suits into a
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case: 1:16-cv-08637 Document #: 4244 Filed: 01/29/21 Page 12 of 434 PageID #:285951
`Case: 1:16-cv-08637 Document #: 4244 Filed: 01/29/21 Page 12 of 434 PageID #:285951
`
`This Complaint is organized as follows: Section H sets out a chart identifying each Plaintiff
`
`and (l) the docket number on the consolidated docket for the DAP operative complaint, (2) the
`
`Defendants named in the DAP complaint (if a Plaintiff has dismissed 3 Defendant, that Defendant
`
`is no longer listed in the Defendant column but in the named co-conspirator column), (3) the co-
`
`conspirators named in the DAP complaint, and (4) the causes of action asserted in the DAP
`
`complaint (and the Counts in this pleading that correspond with the causes of action in the
`
`individual DAP complaint). Sections 111 through X set out the factual allegations. Section XI
`
`states all of the causes of action asserted by any DAP in its respective complaint.
`
`II.
`
`CHART OF DIRECT ACTION PLAINTIFF CASES
`
`Named Defendants
`
`Named Co—
`
`(Not Previously
`Dismissed)
`
`Conspirators (if
`any)
`
`Causes of Action
`
`Operative
`Complaint
`(Reference is
`to Sealed
`
`Version, if
`applicable)
`
`ECF 577-1
`
`ECF 577-1
`
`Alex Lee,
`Inc/Merchants
`Distributors,
`LLC
`
`
`
`Agri Stats; Claxton;
`Fieldale; Foster
`Farms: George’s:
`Harrison; House of
`Raeford; Koch: Mar-
`Jac; Mountaire; O.K.
`Foods; Peco; Perdue;
`Pilgrim’s Pride;
`Sanderson; Simmons;
`Tyson; Wayne
`
`Agri Stats; Claxton;
`Fieldale; Foster
`Farms; George’s;
`Harrison; House of
`Raeford; Koch; Mar-
`Jac; Mountaire: O.K.
`Foods; Peco; Perdue:
`Pilgrim’s Pride:
`Sanderson; Simmons;
`Tyson; Wayne
`
`Count II (Sherman Act
`Claim for Output
`Restriction); Count 111
`(Sherman Act for GA Dock
`Manipulation); Count IV
`(GA RICO Based on 16-
`14-4(a)); Count v (GA
`RICO Based on 16-14-
`
`4(b)); Count VI (Federal
`RICO)
`
`Count H (Sherman Act
`Claim for Output
`Restriction); Count 111
`(Sherman Act Claim for
`GA Dock Manipulation);
`Count IV (GA RICO Based
`on l6-14—4(a)); Count V
`(GA RICO Based on 16-
`l4-4(b)); Count VI
`(Federal RICO)
`
`single cause, or change the rights of the parties, or make those who are parties in one suit parties
`in another”) (internal quotation marks omitted).
`
`

`

`Case: 1:16-cv-08637 Document #: 4244 Filed: 01/29/21 Page 13 of 434 PageID #:285952
`Case: 1:16-cv-08637 Document #: 4244 Filed: 01/29/21 Page 13 of 434 PageID #:285952
`
`Named Defendants
`
`Named Co—
`
`Conspirators (if
`
`Causes of Action
`
`Count 11 (Sherman Act
`Claim for Output
`Restriction): Count 11]
`(Sherman Act Claim for
`GA Dock Manipulation);
`Count IV (GA RICO Based
`on 16-14-4(a)); Count V
`(GA RICO Based on 16-
`l4-4(b)); Count VI
`(Federal RICO)
`
`Count 11 (Sherman Act
`Claim for Output
`Restriction); Count 111
`(Sherman Act Claim for
`GA Dock Manipulation);
`Count IV (GA RICO Based
`on 16-14-4(a)); Count V
`(GA RICO Based on 16-
`l4-4(b)); Count VI
`(Federal RICO)
`
`(Not Previously
`Dismissed)
`
`Agri Stats; Case;
`Claxton; Fieldale;
`Foster Farms;
`George’s; Harrison;
`House of Raeford;
`Keystone Foods;
`Koch; Mar-Jac;
`Mountaire; OK.
`Foods; Peco; Perdue;
`Pilgrim’s Pride;
`Sanderson; Simmons;
`Tyson; Wayne
`
`Agri Stats; Case
`Claxton; Fieldale;
`Foster Farms;
`George’s; Harrison;
`House of Raeford;
`Keystone Foods;
`Koch; Mar-Jac;
`Mountaire; OK.
`Foods; Peco; Perdue;
`Pilgrim’s Pride;
`Sanderson; Simmons;
`Tyson; Wayne
`
`Agri Stats; Case;
`Claxton; Fieldale;
`Foster Farms;
`George’s; Hanison;
`House of Raeford;
`Keystone Foods;
`Koch; Mar-Jae:
`Mountaire; O.K.
`Foods; Peco; Perdue;
`Pilgrim’s Pride;
`Sanderson; Simmons;
`Tyson; Wayne
`
`Operative
`Complaint
`(Reference is
`to Sealed
`
`Version, if
`applicable)
`
`ECF 577-1
`
`Associated
`Grocers of New
`
`England, Inc.
`
`ECF 577-1
`
`Fareway Stores,
`Inc.
`
`ECF 577-1
`
`3113')
`
`Count II (Sherman Act
`Claim for Output
`Restriction); Count 11]
`(Sherman Act Claim for
`GA Dock Manipulation);
`Count IV (GA RICO Based
`on 16-14-4(a)); Count v
`(GA RICO Based on 16-
`l4»4(b)); Count VI
`(Federal RICO)
`
`