Case: 1:16-cv-08637 Document #: 7680 Filed: 04/25/25 Page 1 of 616 PageID #:670855
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
`EASTERN DIVISION
`
`
`
`IN RE BROILER CHICKEN ANTITRUST
`LITIGATION
`
`THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO:
`All Track 2 Direct Action Plaintiffs
`
`
`
`
`
`Civil Action No. 1:16-cv-08637
`
`Judge Thomas M. Durkin
`
`Magistrate Judge Jeffrey T. Gilbert
`
`PUBLIC REDACTED VERSION
`
`DEFENDANT PECO FOODS, INC.’S ANSWER TO
`TRACK 2 DIRECT ACTION PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED
`CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`Defendant Peco Foods, Inc. (“Peco”), answers and sets forth its affirmative defenses to
`
`Track 2 Direct Action Plaintiffs’ (“plaintiffs” or “DAPs”) Second Amended Consolidated
`
`Complaint (“Complaint”), and any subsequently filed joinders thereto, as follows.1
`
`PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
`
`Peco denies all allegations in the Complaint unless Peco expressly admits those allegations
`
`herein. Where an allegation in the Complaint is directed at another defendant or a party that is not
`
`affiliated with Peco, except as otherwise expressly stated, Peco denies the allegations set forth in
`
`the Complaint on the basis that it denies the knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
`
`concerning the truth of such allegations. Further, unless otherwise expressly admitted, Peco denies
`
`any allegations in the headings, footnotes, or in other places in the Complaint, to the extent any
`
`such allegations require a response. Peco has omitted plaintiffs’ footnotes. Any headings,
`
`
`1 Peco has no obligation to answer with respect to those plaintiffs with whom it has settled, who failed to
`timely opt out of Peco’s class settlements, or who otherwise cannot assert claims against Peco, and reserves
`all rights. To the extent any response to those plaintiffs’ allegations is required, Peco incorporates its
`responses herein.
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case: 1:16-cv-08637 Document #: 7680 Filed: 04/25/25 Page 2 of 616 PageID #:670856
`
`subheadings, or similar text that Peco has reprinted in this Answer are for the convenience of the
`
`Court and the parties, and are not intended to be nor shall they be construed as an admission of
`
`any fact by Peco.
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`ANSWER
`
`DAPs filed the original consolidated complaint [ECF Nos. 3924, 3922], an amended
`consolidated complaint [ECF Nos. 4243, 4244], 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 [was] not to force any individual plaintiff to concede or
`make any allegation or claim." Id. DAPs understand the Court's orders to preserve the independent
`legal existence of each DAP case.
`
`Pursuant to the Court's order for Track Two DAPs to file "an amended consolidated
`complaint" that "will be the operative complaint for Track Two DAPs" [ECF No. 5306], Track
`Two Direct Action Plaintiffs ("DAPs" or "Plaintiffs") submit this pleading to illustrate, but not
`exhaustively catalog, material allegations against the Defendants.
`
`Because of differences in the underlying DAP complaints, certain factual allegations may
`only relate or be material to the claims of certain DAPs. A given DAP does not necessarily adopt
`the allegations, theories or legal positions of other DAPs.
`
`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. 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.
`
`This Complaint is organized as follows: Section II sets out a chart identifying each Plaintiff
`and (1) the docket number on the consolidated docket for the underlying DAP complaint, (2) the
`Defendants named in the DAP complaint (if a Plaintiff has dismissed a Defendant, that Defendant
`is no longer liste·d in the Defendant column but in the named co-conspirator column), (3) the co(cid:173)
`conspirators named in the DAP complaint, and (4) the causes of action asserted in the DAP
`complaint. Sections III through X set out the factual allegations. Section XI states all of the causes
`of action asserted by any DAP.
`
`Answer.
`
`DAPs' "Introduction" contains no factual allegations to which a response is
`
`required. Instead, it contains DAPs' legal conclusions and characterizations of this action,
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case: 1:16-cv-08637 Document #: 7680 Filed: 04/25/25 Page 3 of 616 PageID #:670857
`
`including their interpretation of orders of this Court and legal argument related to the scope and
`
`propriety of those orders. To the extent a response is required, Peco denies all allegations in the
`
`Introduction, including those in the accompanying Footnotes.
`
`II.
`
`CHART OF DIRECT ACTION PLAINTIFF CASES
`
`[Plaintiffs' Chart of Direct Action Plaintiffs' Cases is not reprinted here. Plaintiffs provide a
`summary of what they assert the Chart is in Section I of the Complaint, quoted above.]
`
`Answer.
`
`Plaintiffs' "Chart of Direct Action Plaintiffs Cases" contains no factual
`
`allegations to which a response is required. Instead, this chart contains plaintiffs' characterizations
`
`of named parties and claims included in more than 50 complaints filed by more than 140 DAPs or
`
`groups of DAPs. To the extent a response is required, Peco admits that plaintiffs purport to bring
`
`their actions against defendants under various legal theories, but denies that plaintiffs accurately
`
`state those claims and/or are entitled to any of the requested relief. Peco further denies each
`
`statement in the Chart that purports to describe a Claim or Count of the Complaint as being asserted
`
`against Peco that is not named in the specific allegations of such Count or that has been dismissed
`
`since the filing of the Complaint. Peco denies any remaining allegations in the plaintiffs' chart.
`
`III.
`
`SUMMARY OF DAP FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
`
`A.
`
`Overview of the Broiler Industry
`
`This is a case about a long-running and unlawful conspiracy in restraint of trade
`1.
`among some of America's largest broiler chicken producers. The conspiracy, which began at least
`as early as 2008 and continued through at least 2019, was multi-faceted and effectuated through
`numerous inter-related unlawful contracts, combinations, agreements, and other instances of
`anticompetitive conduct. Through each of these unlawful agreements and anticompetitive acts -
`which are independently actionable in and of themselves - Defendants and their co-conspirators
`carried out an overarching conspiracy, the purpose and effect of which was to fix, raise, stabilize,
`and maintain prices of broiler chicken meat throughout the United States.
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case: 1:16-cv-08637 Document #: 7680 Filed: 04/25/25 Page 4 of 616 PageID #:670858
`
`Answer to Paragraph 1.
`
`Peco denies the conspiracy or conspiracies alleged in the
`
`Complaint. Paragraph 1 contains plaintiffs' characterization of their claims, allegations subject to
`
`proof by expert testimony, and/or legal conclusions to which no response is required. To the extent
`
`the allegations in Paragraph 1 relate to other defendants and/or third parties to this action, Peco
`
`lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of those allegations and
`
`therefore denies them. To the extent a response is required, Peco denies the allegations. No
`
`response is required to allegations relating to an overarching conspiracy because, as the Court has
`
`concluded, plaintiffs do not have overarching conspiracy claims against Peco, including because
`
`plaintiffs failed to allege Peco joined any conspiracies related to bid rigging or the Georgia Dock.
`
`(Mem. Op. Order, Feb. 11, 2025, ECF No. 7501.) To the extent a response is required, Peco denies
`
`the allegations. Peco denies any remaining allegations in Paragraph 1.
`
`Defendants' multi-faceted conspiracy manifested itself in many different ways and
`2.
`was implemented through various inter-related overt acts, each of which had the effect of
`unreasonably restraining trade, artificially inflating and maintaining prices, and reducing
`competition in the broiler chicken industry. They reduced the supply of broiler chickens into the
`market. They rigged bids on broiler chicken sales. They manipulated both individual customer
`price matrixes as well as an industry price index - specifically, the Georgia Dock price index -
`with respect to the prices of chicken they sold to purchasers such as Plaintiffs. They shared
`confidential and competitively sensitive information regarding production, capacity, and pricing.
`These and other unlawful agreements and anticompetitive acts were undertaken in furtherance of
`the overarching conspiracy and shared the common goal of fixing, raising, stabilizing, and
`maintaining prices of broiler chicken meat throughout the United States.
`
`Answer to Paragraph 2.
`
`Peco denies the conspiracy or conspiracies alleged in the
`
`Complaint. Paragraph 2 contains plaintiffs' characterization of their claims, allegations subject to
`
`proof by expert testimony, and/or legal conclusions to which no response is required. The bid(cid:173)
`
`rigging and Georgia Dock allegations contained in Paragraph 2 are not directed at Peco, as
`
`plaintiffs and the Court have recognized that Peco did not participate in the alleged conspiracy to
`
`rig bids or relating to the Georgia Dock. (Second Am. Consol. Compl. ,r 874 n.26, ,r 26; Mem. Op.
`
`Order, Feb. 11, 2025, ECF No. 7501.) Accordingly, no response is required. To the extent a
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case: 1:16-cv-08637 Document #: 7680 Filed: 04/25/25 Page 5 of 616 PageID #:670859
`
`response is required, Peco denies the allegations. No response is required to allegations relating to
`
`an overarching conspiracy because, as the Court has concluded, plaintiffs do not have overarching
`
`conspiracy claims against Peco, including because plaintiffs failed to allege Peco joined any
`
`conspiracies related to bid rigging or the Georgia Dock. (Mem. Op. Order, Feb. 11, 2025, ECF
`
`No. 7501.) To the extent a response is required, Peco denies the allegations. To the extent the
`
`allegations in Paragraph 2 relate to other defendants and/or third parties to this action, Peco lacks
`
`knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of those allegations and
`
`therefore denies them. Peco denies any remaining allegations in Paragraph 2.
`
`Eight of the participants in the alleged conspiracy-Fieldale Farms, Peco, George's,
`3.
`Amick, Tyson, Pilgrim's Pride, Mar-Jae, and Harrison Poultry - have already agreed to pay over
`$180 million to settle claims by a putative class of direct purchasers alleging that they participated
`in this conspiracy.
`
`Answer to Paragraph 3.
`
`Peco denies the conspiracy or conspiracies alleged in the
`
`Complaint. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 3 relate to other defendants and/or third
`
`parties to this action, Peco lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth
`
`of those allegations and therefore denies them. Peco admits it has reached a settlement with a
`
`putative class of direct purchasers, which has been approved by the Court. To the extent the
`
`allegations in Paragraph 3 characterize that settlement agreement, Peco denies any characterization
`
`or description that is inconsistent with the referenced sources. Peco denies any remaining
`
`allegations in Paragraph 3.
`
`Fourteen senior executives from at least five of the Defendants, as well as
`4.
`Defendants Claxton and Koch, are already under criminal indictment by the United States
`Department of Justice in connection with their roles in the conspiracy, and the Department of
`Justice also made clear that its investigation is ongoing. The Department of Justice's investigation
`has already resulted in a guilty plea by Defendant Pilgrim's for charges of price-fixing and bid(cid:173)
`rigging. Pilgrim's was fined $107.9 million by to the Department of Justice for its criminal
`violations of the Sherman Act. Defendant Tyson is also cooperating with the Department of
`Justice's investigation and has applied for leniency under the Antitrust Division's corporate
`leniency program. Other federal agencies, such as the United States Department of Agriculture,
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case: 1:16-cv-08637 Document #: 7680 Filed: 04/25/25 Page 6 of 616 PageID #:670860
`
`and several state Attorneys General, including Florida, Washington, and Alaska, have also
`launched investigations and separate lawsuits aimed at Defendants' conspiracy.
`
`Answer to Paragraph 4.
`
`Peco denies the conspiracy or conspiracies alleged in the
`
`Complaint. The bid-rigging allegations contained in Paragraph 4 are not directed at Peco, as
`
`plaintiffs and the Court have recognized that Peco did not pat1icipate in the alleged conspiracy to
`
`rig bids. (Second Am. Consol. Compl. 1874 n.26; Mem. Op. Order, Feb. 11, 2025, ECF No. 7501.)
`
`Accordingly, no response is required. To the extent a response is required, Peco denies the
`
`allegations. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 4 relate to other defendants and/or third
`
`parties to this action, Peco lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth
`
`of those allegations and therefore denies them. To the extent a response is required, Peco denies
`
`the allegations. Peco denies any remaining allegations in Paragraph 4.
`
`"Broilers," "chickens," or "broiler chickens" are chickens raised for meat
`5.
`consumption to be slaughtered before the age of 13 weeks, and which 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 kosher,
`free range, or organic standards. Broiler chickens constitute approximately 98% of all chicken
`meat sold in the United States. The broiler industry is a highly concentrated market with over $30
`billion in annual wholesale revenue.
`
`Answer to Paragraph 5.
`
`To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 5 relate to other
`
`defendants and/or third parties to this action, Peco lacks knowledge or information sufficient to
`
`form a belief as to the truth of those allegations and therefore denies them. The first sentence of
`
`Paragraph 5 contains plaintiffs' explanation of a defined term used in their Complaint, to which
`
`no response is required. To the extent a response is required, Peco admits that plaintiffs have
`
`defined "Broilers" in their Complaint as described in the first sentence of Paragraph 5. Peco admits
`
`that Broilers constitute a substantial portion of all chicken meat sold in the United States, but lacks
`
`knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the precise percentage alleged in the
`
`second sentence of Paragraph 5 and therefore denies it. Peco denies the allegation that the "broiler
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case: 1:16-cv-08637 Document #: 7680 Filed: 04/25/25 Page 7 of 616 PageID #:670861
`
`industry is a highly concentrated market," and lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form
`
`a belief as to the precise dollar amount of annual wholesale revenue alleged in the third sentence
`
`of Paragraph 5 and therefore denies it. Peco denies any remaining allegations in Paragraph 5.
`
`Defendants own or tightly control all aspects of broiler chicken production,
`6.
`including the laying of eggs; the hatching of chicks; the raising of chicks; the slaughtering of
`chickens; and processing and distributing the meat. The technology and process of industrial-scale
`broiler chicken production is well known among Defendants, and all Defendants use the same
`types of equipment and processes.
`
`Answer to Paragraph 6.
`
`To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 6 relate to other
`
`defendants and/or third parties to this action, Peco lacks knowledge or information sufficient to
`
`form a belief as to the truth of those allegations and therefore denies them. Peco admits that it has
`
`ownership and control over aspects of its production, including production and processing. As the
`
`term "tightly control" in the first sentence of Paragraph 6 is imprecise, Peco lacks knowledge or
`
`information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in that sentence
`
`and therefore denies them. Peco denies any remaining allegations in Paragraph 6.
`
`High barriers to entry exist in the broiler chicken market. Entry into the market
`7.
`would cost in excess of $100 million, and no company has created a new poultry company from
`scratch in decades.
`
`Answer to Paragraph 7.
`
`As the term "high barriers" is
`
`imprecise, Peco lacks
`
`knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph
`
`7 and therefore denies them. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 7 relate to other defendants
`
`and/or third parties to this action, Peco lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
`
`as to the truth of those allegations and therefore denies them. Peco denies any remaining
`
`allegations in Paragraph 7.
`
`B.
`
`Summary of Defendants' Conspiracy
`
`8.
`For example:
`
`Defendants implemented their conspiracy through multiple means and methods.
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case: 1:16-cv-08637 Document #: 7680 Filed: 04/25/25 Page 8 of 616 PageID #:670862
`
`• Defendants coordinated unprecedented cuts in the supply of broiler chickens, including
`the purposeful destruction of breeder hens and eggs;
`
`• Defendants collusively and fraudulently manipulated the Georgia Dock price index in
`order to raise prices to customers;
`
`• Defendants rigged bids submitted to customers through multiple avenues, including the
`exchange uf confidential information regarding the bids they were submitting, or
`intended to submit, so that supposedly competitive bids were aligned;
`
`• Defendants shared confidential and competitively sensitive information regarding
`production, capacity, and pricing through direct communications and intermediaries
`such as Agri-Stats, under the cover of M&A activity, and during discussions about
`sale/purchase transactions with each other;
`
`• Defendants utilized so-called strategic alliances and joint ventures, including the Tip
`Top Alliance and Southern Hens, to further restrict broiler chicken supply and share
`confidential and competitively sensitive information;
`
`• Defendants coordinated direct purchases of broiler chickens from one another and from
`smaller producers in order to soak up excess supply that could potentially depress
`market prices, including the adoption of "Buy vs. Grow" strategies;
`
`• Defendants exported hatching eggs to Mexico and other foreign countries against their
`own self-interest with the intent of artificially reducing supply and increasing the price
`of broiler chicken in the United States;
`
`• Defendants coordinated a move away from annual fixed-price contracts for some
`customers to contracts that allowed Defendants to take advantage of price fluctuations
`from market indices that could be manipulated; and
`
`• Defendants coordinated denial of letters of credit requested by customers.
`
`While Defendants may have utilized multiple avenues, they all had the common goal of
`fixing, raising, stabilizing, and maintaining prices of broiler chicken meat throughout the United
`States.
`
`Answer to Paragraph 8.
`
`Peco denies the conspiracy or conspiracies alleged in the
`
`Complaint. Paragraph 8 contains plaintiffs' characterization of their claims, allegations subject to
`
`proof by expert testimony, and/or legal conclusions to which no response is required. The bid(cid:173)
`
`rigging and Georgia Dock allegations contained in Paragraph 8 are not directed at Peco, as
`
`plaintiffs and the Court have recognized that Peco did not participate in the alleged conspiracy to
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case: 1:16-cv-08637 Document #: 7680 Filed: 04/25/25 Page 9 of 616 PageID #:670863
`
`rig bids or relating to the Georgia Dock. (Second Am. Consol. Comp!. ,r 874 n.26, ,r 26; Mem. Op.
`
`Order, Feb. 11, 2025, ECF No. 7501.) Accordingly, no response is required. To the extent a
`
`response is required, Peco denies the allegations. No response is required to allegations relating to
`
`an overarching conspiracy because, as the Court has concluded, plaintiffs do not have overarching
`
`conspiracy claims against Peco, including because plaintiffs failed to allege Peco joined any
`
`conspiracies related to bid rigging or the Georgia Dock. (Mem. Op. Order, Feb. 11, 2025, ECF
`
`No. 7501.) To the extent a response is required, Peco denies the allegations. To the extent the
`
`allegations in Paragraph 8 relate to other defendants and/or third parties to this action, Peco lacks
`
`knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of those allegations and
`
`therefore denies them. Peco denies any remaining allegations in Paragraph 8.
`
`Numerous "plus factors" also existed in the broiler industry during the relevant
`9.
`period. "Plus factors" are economic actions and outcomes, above and beyond parallel conduct by
`oligopolistic firms, that are generally inconsistent with unilateral conduct but largely consistent
`with explicitly coordinated action. The "plus factors" present in the broiler industry during the
`relevant period include, but are not limited to: (i) direct communications between Defendants
`regarding confidential production information which allowed Defendants to disseminate actual
`and false information regarding supply reductions to purchasers of broilers; (ii) coordinated
`manipulation by Defendants of the Georgia Dock price index; (iii) Defendants' coordinated
`conduct to rig bids to purchasers of broilers; (iv) extensive information sharing through Agri Stats
`and other means; (v) numerous opportunities for Defendants to collude in a variety of forums; (vi)
`inter-Defendant trades and purchases that often were against independent self-interest; (vii)
`increased exports of broilers to other countries that were also often against independent self(cid:173)
`interest; and (viii) multiple industry characteristics that facilitated collusion, such as high vertical
`integration, high barriers to entry, high industry consolidation and concentration, inelastic supply
`and demand, a lack of significant substitutes for chicken, depressed economic conditions, and a
`history of government investigations and collusive conduct.
`
`Answer to Paragraph 9.
`
`Paragraph 9 contains plaintiffs characterization of its claims,
`
`allegations subject to proof by expert testimony, and/or legal conclusions, to which no response is
`
`required. To the extent any response is required, Peco denies those allegations. To the extent the
`
`allegations in Paragraph 9 relate to other defendants and/or third parties to this action, Peco lacks
`
`knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of those allegations and
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case: 1:16-cv-08637 Document #: 7680 Filed: 04/25/25 Page 10 of 616 PageID #:670864
`
`therefore denies them. The bid-rigging and Georgia Dock allegations contained in Paragraph 9 are
`
`not directed at Peco, as plaintiffs and the Court have recognized that Peco did not participate in
`
`the alleged conspiracy to rig bids or relating to the Georgia Dock. (Second Am. Consol. Compl.
`
`~ 874 n.26, ~ 26; Mem. Op. Order, Feb. 11, 2025, ECF No. 7501.) Accordingly, no response is
`
`required. To the extent a response is required, Peco denies the allegations. Peco denies any
`
`remaining allegations in Paragraph 9.
`
`C.
`
`Defendants' Coordinated Supply Restrictions
`
`Defendants curtailed the supply of chickens in the market on the front end via
`10.
`coordinated and unprecedented cuts at the top of the supply chain. This included the coordinated
`and collusive reduction of production capacity and jointly and collusively reducing "breeder flocks"
`that produce chickens ultimately slaughtered for meat consumption.
`
`Answer to Paragraph 10.
`
`Peco denies the conspiracy or conspiracies alleged in the
`
`Complaint. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 10 relate to other defendants and/or third
`
`parties to this action, Peco lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth
`
`of those allegations and therefore denies them. Peco admits that it plans and executes its Broiler
`
`production each year based on its own, unilateral business judgment of what is in its independent
`
`interest and denies that any such production decisions were coordinated or made pursuant to a
`
`conspiracy or agreement. Peco denies any remaining allegations in Paragraph 10.
`
`Historically, when faced with low market prices, Defendants relied primarily on
`11.
`mechanisms that temporarily reduced production at the middle or end of the supply chain, such as
`reducing eggs placements, killing newly-hatched chicks, or idling processing plants. These
`mechanisms still allowed Defendants to ramp up production within weeks if market conditions
`changed.
`
`Answer to Paragraph 11. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 11 relate to other
`
`defendants and/or third parties to this action, Peco lacks knowledge or information sufficient to
`
`form a belief as to the truth of those allegations and therefore denies them. Peco admits that it plans
`
`and executes its Broiler production each year based on its own, unilateral business judgment of
`
`

`

`Case: 1:16-cv-08637 Document #: 7680 Filed: 04/25/25 Page 11 of 616 PageID #:670865
`
`what is in its independent interest and denies that any such production decisions were coordinated
`
`or made pursuant to a conspiracy or agreement. Peco denies any remaining allegations in
`
`Paragraph 11.
`
`Prior to the relevant period, Defendants' pattern of annual increases in chicken
`12.
`production became so entrenched over decades of experience that by the 2000s, a widely-repeated
`industry quip was that life only held three certainties: death, taxes, "and 3% more broilers."
`
`Answer to Paragraph 12.
`
`Peco lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a
`
`belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 12 and therefore denies them.
`
`A leading industry publication noted in early 2009 that chicken "production in the
`13.
`U.S. used to be just like government spending, it never went down and cutbacks only resulted in
`slowing the rate of growth, but not anymore," because for "the first time in decades, total broiler
`production in 2008 remained virtually unchanged from the year before."
`
`Answer to Paragraph 13. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 13 characterize or
`
`describe documents or other sources, Peco denies any characterization or description that is
`
`inconsistent with those documents or other sources. Peco denies any remaining allegations in
`
`Paragraph 13.
`
`In 2008, faced with dropping prices and low profits, Defendants collectively began
`14.
`cutting their ability to ramp up production by materially reducing their breeder flocks.
`
`Answer to Paragraph 14.
`
`Peco denies the conspiracy or conspiracies alleged in the
`
`Complaint. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 14 relate to other defendants and/or third
`
`parties to this action, Peco lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth
`
`of those allegations and therefore denies them. Peco admits that it plans and executes its Broiler
`
`production each year based on its own, unilateral business judgment of what is in its independent
`
`interest and denies that any such production decisions were coordinated or made pursuant to a
`
`conspiracy or agreement. Peco denies any remaining allegations in Paragraph 14.
`
`Defendants abandoned their traditional, short-term production cuts and instituted
`15.
`material changes that increased ramp-up times by up to 18 months. This was a significant shift in
`their behavior and signaled their commitment to the conspiracy.
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case: 1:16-cv-08637 Document #: 7680 Filed: 04/25/25 Page 12 of 616 PageID #:670866
`
`Answer to Paragraph 15.
`
`Peco denies the conspiracy or conspiracies alleged in the
`
`Complaint. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 15 relate to other defendants and/or third
`
`parties to this action, Peco lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth
`
`of those allegations and therefore denies them. Peco admits that it plans and executes its Broiler
`
`production each year based on its own, unilateral business judgment of what is in its independent
`
`interest and denies that any such production decisions were coordinated or made pursuant to a
`
`conspiracy or agreement. Peco denies any remaining allegations in Paragraph 15.
`
`Defendants' collective market-changing cuts to breeder flocks - a first round from
`16.
`2008 to early 2009, and a subsequent round from 2011 to 2012 as the conspiracy continued into
`the next decade - effectively eliminated each Defendant's ability to meaningfully increase supply
`for years.
`
`Answer to Paragraph 16. Peco denies the conspiracy or conspiracies alleged in the
`
`Complaint. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 16 relate to other defendants and/or third
`
`parties to this action, Peco lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth
`
`of those allegations and therefore denies them. Peco admits that it plans and executes its Broiler
`
`production each year based on its own, unilateral business judgment of what is in its independent
`
`interest and denies that any such production decisions were coordinated or made pursuant to a
`
`conspiracy or agreement. Peco denies any remaining allegations in Paragraph 16.
`
`Defendants' joint efforts to impose supply-side "discipline" included, among other
`17.
`things, open signaling in the form of public statements by their senior executives about their
`individual commitment to production cuts as well as the importance of instituting and maintaining
`this "discipline" across the industry as a whole. Defendants' public statements on the need for, and
`benefits of, industry-wide supply "discipline" marked a significant departure from past industry
`practice. Indeed, Defendants continuously urged one another to "lower supply in order to offset
`reduced demand and to support higher market prices."
`
`Answer to Paragraph 17. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 17 relate to other
`
`defendants and/or third parties to this action, Peco lacks knowledge or information sufficient to
`
`form a belief as to the truth of those allegations and therefore denies them. To the extent the
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case: 1:16-cv-08637 Document #: 7680 Filed: 04/25/25 Page 13 of 616 PageID #:670867
`
`allegations in Paragraph 17 characterize or describe documents or other sources, Peco denies any
`
`characterization or description that is inconsistent with those documents or other sources. Peco
`
`denies any remaining allegations in Paragraph 1 7.
`
`Defendants were able to facilitate, monitor and police their coordinated output
`18.
`restriction scheme by, among other things, communicating through third parties including Agri
`Stats and Umer Barry (a private commodity price reporting service).
`
`Answer to Paragraph 18.
`
`Peco denies the conspiracy or conspiracies alleged in the
`
`Complaint. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 18 relate to other defendants and/or third
`
`parties to this action, Peco lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth
`
`of those allegations and therefore denies them. Peco denies any remaining allegations in Paragraph
`
`18.
`
`Defendants also were able to facilitate, monitor and police their coordinated output
`19.
`restriction scheme by using reports purchased, at significant cost, from Agri Stats, a former
`subsidiary of global pharmaceutical company Eli Lilly & Co.
`
`Answer to Paragraph 19.
`
`Peco denies the conspiracy or conspiracies alleged in the
`
`Complaint. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 19 relate to other defendants and/or third
`
`parties to this action, Peco lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth
`
`of those allegations and therefore denies them. Peco denies any remaining allegations in