Case: 1:16-cv-08637 Document #: 4451 Filed: 03/22/21 Page 1 of 5 PageID #:295164
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
`EASTERN DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`IN RE BROILER CHICKEN ANTITRUST
`LITIGATION
`
`
`
`
`No. 1:16-cv-08637
`
`Honorable Thomas M. Durkin
`Magistrate Judge Jeffrey T. Gilbert
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`This Document Relates To:
`
`All End-User Consumer Plaintiff Actions
`
`
`
`
`ORDER GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS
`BETWEEN END-USER CONSUMER PLAINTIFFS AND TYSON, FIELDALE, PECO
`FOODS AND GEORGE’S DEFENDANTS
`
`
`Now before the Court is End-User Consumer Plaintiffs’ (“EUCPs”) Motion for
`
`Preliminary Approval of Settlements with (1) Defendants Tyson Foods, Inc., Tyson Chicken,
`
`Inc., Tyson Breeders, Inc. and Tyson Poultry, Inc. (“Tyson”), (2) Defendant Fieldale Corporation
`
`(“Fieldale”), (3) Defendant Peco Foods, Inc. (“Peco”), and (4) Defendants George’s, Inc., and
`
`George’s Farms, Inc. (“George’s) (collectively, “Settling Defendants”).
`
`The Court, having reviewed the Motion, its accompanying memorandum and the exhibits
`
`thereto, the Settlement Agreement between Tyson and EUCPs (“Tyson Settlement Agreement”),
`
`the Settlement Agreement between Fieldale and EUCPs (“Fieldale Settlement Agreement”), the
`
`Settlement Agreement between Peco and EUCPs (“Peco Settlement Agreement”), the Settlement
`
`Agreement between George’s and EUCPs (“George’s Settlement Agreement”), and the file,
`
`hereby ORDERS:
`
`010636-11/1440067 V2
`
`- 1 -
`
`

`

`Case: 1:16-cv-08637 Document #: 4451 Filed: 03/22/21 Page 2 of 5 PageID #:295165
`
`1.
`
`This Court has jurisdiction over this action and each of the parties to the
`
`Settlement Agreement.
`
`2.
`
`This Court certifies a Settlement Class defined as:
`
`All persons and entities who indirectly purchased fresh or frozen
`raw chicken (defined as whole birds (with or without giblets),
`whole cut-up birds purchased within a package, or “white meat”
`parts including breasts and wings (or cuts containing a
`combination of these), but excluding chicken that is marketed as
`halal, kosher, free range, or organic) from Defendants or alleged
`co-conspirators for personal consumption, where the person or
`entity purchased in California, District of Columbia, Florida,
`Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan,
`Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New
`Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island (after
`July 15, 2013), South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah,
`and Wisconsin from January 1, 2009 (except for Rhode Island,
`which is from July 15, 2013) to July 31, 2019.
`
`This class definition is in all material respects the same settlement class proposed in
`
`EUCPs’ Fifth Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint, ECF Nos. 3747 (redacted), and
`
`3748 (sealed), and the same class set forth in the Settlement Agreement. See Tyson Settlement
`
`Agreement, § II.G.2; Fieldale Settlement Agreement, § II.G.2; Peco Settlement Agreement,
`
`§ II.G.2; and George’s Settlement Agreement, § II.G.2.
`
`3.
`
` The Court appoints the law firms of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP and
`
`Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, PLLC as Co-Lead counsel for the Settlement Class.
`
`4.
`
`Upon review of the record, the Court finds that the proposed Tyson Settlement
`
`Agreement has been negotiated at arm’s length, falls within the range of possible approval and
`
`is hereby preliminarily approved, subject to further consideration at the Court’s Fairness
`
`Hearing. The Court finds that the Tyson Settlement Agreement is preliminarily determined to
`
`be fair, reasonable, adequate, and in the best interests of the Class, raises no obvious reasons to
`
`doubt its fairness, and raises a reasonable basis for presuming that the Settlement and its terms
`
`010636-11/1440067 V2
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`

`Case: 1:16-cv-08637 Document #: 4451 Filed: 03/22/21 Page 3 of 5 PageID #:295166
`
`satisfy the requirements of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(c)(2) and 23(e) and due
`
`process so that notice of the Settlement may be given to the Settlement Class when
`
`appropriate.
`
`5.
`
`Upon review of the record, the Court finds that the proposed Fieldale
`
`Settlement Agreement has been negotiated at arm’s length, falls within the range of possible
`
`approval and is hereby preliminarily approved, subject to further consideration at the Court’s
`
`Fairness Hearing. The Court finds that the Fieldale Settlement Agreement is preliminarily
`
`determined to be fair, reasonable, adequate, and in the best interests of the Class, raises no
`
`obvious reasons to doubt its fairness, and raises a reasonable basis for presuming that the
`
`Settlement and its terms satisfy the requirements of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(c)(2)
`
`and 23(e) and due process so that notice of the Settlement may be given to the Settlement
`
`Class when appropriate.
`
`6.
`
`Upon review of the record, the Court finds that the proposed Peco Settlement
`
`Agreement has been negotiated at arm’s length, falls within the range of possible approval and
`
`is hereby preliminarily approved, subject to further consideration at the Court’s Fairness
`
`Hearing. The Court finds that the Peco Settlement Agreement is preliminarily determined to be
`
`fair, reasonable, adequate, and in the best interests of the Class, raises no obvious reasons to
`
`doubt its fairness, and raises a reasonable basis for presuming that the Settlement and its terms
`
`satisfy the requirements of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(c)(2) and 23(e) and due
`
`process so that notice of the Settlement may be given to the Settlement Class when
`
`appropriate.
`
`7.
`
`The Court further finds that the proposed George’s Settlement Agreement has
`
`been negotiated at arm’s length, falls within the range of possible approval and is hereby
`
`010636-11/1440067 V2
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`

`Case: 1:16-cv-08637 Document #: 4451 Filed: 03/22/21 Page 4 of 5 PageID #:295167
`
`preliminarily approved, subject to further consideration at the Court’s Fairness Hearing. The
`
`Court finds that the George’s Settlement Agreement as well is preliminarily determined to be
`
`fair, reasonable, adequate, and in the best interests of the Class, raises no obvious reasons to
`
`doubt its fairness, and raises a reasonable basis for presuming that the Settlement and its terms
`
`satisfy the requirements of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(c)(2) and 23(e) and due
`
`process so that notice of the Settlement may be given to the Settlement Class when
`
`appropriate.
`
`8.
`
`At a later time, Co-Lead Counsel will move the Court to approve a program to
`
`notify members of the Settlement Class of these and any other then-pending settlements, as the
`
`Court finds it would be more efficient and economical to defer the notice and claims process
`
`until a later time.
`
`9.
`
`After Class Notice has been approved and disseminated, the Court shall hold a
`
`hearing on the Proposed Settlements to determine whether they are fair, reasonable, and
`
`adequate, and whether they should be finally approved by the Court (the “Fairness Hearing”).
`
`10.
`
`After Notice has been disseminated, Class Members who wish to exclude
`
`themselves from any of these Settlements will be required to submit an appropriate and timely
`
`request for exclusion, and Class Members who wish to object to any of these Settlements must
`
`submit an appropriate and timely written statement of the grounds for objection. Class
`
`Members who wish to appear in person to object to any of these Agreements may do so at the
`
`Fairness Hearing pursuant to directions by the Court.
`
`11.
`
`Terms used in this Order that are defined in the Settlement Agreements are,
`
`unless otherwise defined herein, used as defined in the Settlement Agreements.
`
`12.
`
`If any of these Settlement Agreements is terminated or rescinded in accordance
`
`010636-11/1440067 V2
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`

`Case: 1:16-cv-08637 Document #: 4451 Filed: 03/22/21 Page 5 of 5 PageID #:295168
`
`with its provisions, or otherwise does not become Final, then the Settlement Agreement and all
`
`proceedings in connection therewith shall be vacated, and shall be null and void, except
`
`insofar as expressly provided otherwise in the Settlement Agreement, and without prejudice to
`
`the status quo ante rights of EUCPs, the Settling Defendant, and the members of the Class. The
`
`Parties shall also comply with any terms or provisions of the Settlement Agreement applicable
`
`to termination, rescission, or the Settlement otherwise not becoming Final.
`
`13.
`
`Neither this Order nor any of these Settlement Agreements shall be deemed or
`
`construed to be an admission or evidence of any violation of any statute, law, rule, or
`
`regulation or of any liability or wrongdoing by any of the Settling Defendants or of the truth of
`
`any of EUCPs’ Claims or allegations, nor shall it be deemed or construed to be an admission
`
`nor evidence of Released Parties’ defenses.
`
`14.
`
`The Action with respect to EUCPs’ Claims is stayed as to the Released Parties
`
`(as that term is defined in the Settlement Agreements) except as necessary to effectuate this
`
`Settlement.
`
` IT IS SO ORDERED.
`
`March 22, 2021
`DATED: ________________
`
`HONORABLE THOMAS M. DURKIN
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
`
`010636-11/1440067 V2
`
`- 5 -
`
`