Case: 1:16-cv-08637 Document #: 7681 Filed: 04/25/25 Page 1 of 590 PageID #:671471
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE 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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DEFENDANTS SIMMONS FOODS, INC. AND SIMMONS PREPARED FOODS, INC.’S
`ANSWER TO TRACK 2 DIRECT ACTION PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED
`CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`
`
`
`Defendants Simmons Foods, Inc. and Simmons Prepared Foods, Inc. (“Simmons”) answer
`
`and set forth their affirmative defenses to Track 2 Direct Action Plaintiffs’ (“Plaintiffs”) Second
`
`Amended Consolidated Complaint (“Complaint”), and any subsequently filed joinders thereto, as
`
`follows. Simmons denies each and every allegation in Plaintiffs’ Complaint except as expressly
`
`admitted below.
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`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”)1 submit this
`pleading to illustrate, but not exhaustively catalog, material allegations against the
`Defendants.2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case: 1:16-cv-08637 Document #: 7681 Filed: 04/25/25 Page 2 of 590 PageID #:671472
`
`
`
`
`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.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
`
`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 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. Sections III through X set out the factual
`allegations. Section XI states all of the causes of action asserted by any DAP.
`
`FN 1: Given the consolidated nature of this complaint, the plural usage of the term
`“Plaintiffs” is used throughout to generally describe one or more DAPs 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.
`
`FN 2: DAPs objected to filing a consolidated complaint [ECF No. 3625, 4695],
`and maintain those objections for all purposes, including any appeals.
`
`FN 3: For example, some DAPs chose not to sue certain Defendants sued by other
`DAPs. 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 own legal analysis of the causes of action applicable to it based on
`the facts specific to each DAP.
`
`FN 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 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).
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case: 1:16-cv-08637 Document #: 7681 Filed: 04/25/25 Page 3 of 590 PageID #:671473
`
`
`
`
`ANSWER:
`
` DAPs’ “Introduction” contains no factual allegations to which a response
`
`is required. Instead, it contains DAPs’ legal conclusions and characterizations of this action,
`
`including their interpretations of orders of this Court and legal argument related to the scope and
`
`propriety of these orders. To the extent a response is required, Simmons 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 contains in Section I of the Complaint,
`quoted above.]
`
`FN 5: Claims against the Rabobank Defendants were dismissed with prejudice. [ECF No.
`5429]. A motion for entry of judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b) has been filed. [ECF
`No. 5441].
`
`FN 6: Claims against the Rabobank Defendants were dismissed with prejudice. [ECF No.
`5429]. A motion for entry of judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b) has been filed. [ECF
`No. 5441].
`
`FN 7: Claims against the Rabobank Defendants were dismissed with prejudice. [ECF No.
`5429]. A motion for entry of judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b) has been filed. [ECF No.
`5441].
`
`FN 8: Claims against the Rabobank Defendants were dismissed with prejudice. [ECF No.
`5429]. A motion for entry of judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b) has been filed. [ECF No.
`5441].
`
`FN 9: Claims against the Rabobank Defendants were dismissed with prejudice. [ECF No.
`5429]. A motion for entry of judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b) has been filed. [ECF No.
`5441].
`
`FN 10: Claims against the Rabobank Defendants were dismissed with prejudice. [ECF No.
`5429]. A motion for entry of judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b) has been filed. [ECF No.
`5441].
`
`
`ANSWER: DAPS’ “Chart of Direct Action Plaintiffs Cases” contains no factual
`
`allegations to which a response is required. Instead, this chart contains characterization of the
`
`named parties and claims included in numerous complaints filed by many DAPs or groups of
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case: 1:16-cv-08637 Document #: 7681 Filed: 04/25/25 Page 4 of 590 PageID #:671474
`
`
`
`DAPs. To the extent a response is required, Simmons admits that DAPs purport to bring their
`
`actions against Defendants under various legal theories, but denies that DAPs accurately state
`
`those claims and/or are entitled to any of the requested relief. Simmons further denies that the chart
`
`is accurate, including because it does not reflect activity that has occurred within this case
`
`(including dismissals) that have occurred since the chart was originally filed. Simmons further
`
`denies each statement in the Chart that purports to describe a Claim or Count of the Complaint as
`
`being asserted against Simmons that does not name Simmons in the specific allegations of such
`
`Count. Simmons lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the
`
`allegations in the Chart relating to other Defendants. Simmons denies any remaining allegations
`
`in the DAPs’ Chart and accompanying footnotes.
`
`
`A.
`
`
`III.
`
`SUMMARY OF DAP FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
`
`Overview of the Broiler Industry
`1.
`This is a case about a long-running and unlawful conspiracy in restraint of
`trade 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.
`
`ANSWER: Simmons denies the allegations in Paragraph 1.
`
`Defendants’ multi-faceted conspiracy manifested itself in many different
`2.
`ways and 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
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case: 1:16-cv-08637 Document #: 7681 Filed: 04/25/25 Page 5 of 590 PageID #:671475
`
`
`
`chicken meat throughout the United States.
`
`ANSWER: Simmons denies the allegations in Paragraph 2.
`
`Eight of the participants in the alleged conspiracy – Fieldale Farms, Peco,
`3.
`George’s, Amick, Tyson, Pilgrim’s Pride, Mar-Jac, 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: Simmons denies the existence of and participation in DAPs’ alleged
`
`conspiracy. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 3 characterize court-approved settlement
`
`agreements, Simmons denies any characterization or description that is inconsistent with the
`
`referenced sources. Simmons 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- 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.11 Other federal agencies, such as the
`United States Department of Agriculture, and several state Attorneys General, including
`Florida, Washington, and Alaska, have also launched investigations and separate lawsuits
`aimed at Defendants’ conspiracy.
`
`FN 11: Tyson, by seeking leniency, had to admit to the Department of Justice that
`it had committed a criminal violation of the federal antitrust laws:
`
`
`Does a leniency applicant have to admit to a criminal violation of
`the antitrust laws before receiving a conditional leniency letter?
`Yes. The Division’s
`leniency policies were established
`for
`corporations and individuals ‘reporting their illegal antitrust
`activity,’ and the policies protect leniency recipients from criminal
`conviction. Thus, the applicant must admit its participation in a
`criminal antitrust violation involving price fixing, bid rigging,
`capacity restriction, or allocation of markets, customers, or sales or
`production volumes, before it will receive a conditional leniency
`letter.
`
`FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS ABOUT THE ANTITRUST DIVISION’S
`LENIENCY PROGRAM AND MODEL LENIENCY LETTERS, January 26, 2017,
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case: 1:16-cv-08637 Document #: 7681 Filed: 04/25/25 Page 6 of 590 PageID #:671476
`
`
`
`at 6.
`
`
`ANSWER: Simmons denies the existence of and participation in DAPs’ alleged
`
`conspiracy. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 4 and FN 11 characterize activity or
`
`documents from criminal proceedings, Simmons denies any characterization or description that is
`
`inconsistent with the referenced sources. Simmons lacks knowledge or information sufficient to
`
`form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in Paragraph 4 and FN 11 and therefore
`
`denies them.
`
`“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: Simmons lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to
`
`the truth of any allegations in Paragraph 5 that relate to other Defendants and/or third parties, and
`
`therefore denies the allegations in Paragraph 5 to the extent that they relate to other Defendants
`
`and/or third parties. The first sentence in Paragraph 5 contains DAPs’ explanation of a defined
`
`term used in their Complaint, to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required,
`
`Simmons admist that DAPs have defined “Broilers” in their Complaint as described in the first
`
`sentence of Paragraph 5. Simmons 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 them. Simmons denies the allegation that the “broiler 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
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case: 1:16-cv-08637 Document #: 7681 Filed: 04/25/25 Page 7 of 590 PageID #:671477
`
`
`
`denies them. Simmons 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: Simmons lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to
`
`the truth of any allegations in Paragraph 6 that relate to other Defendants and/or third parties, and
`
`therefore Simmons denies the allegations in Paragraph 6 to the extent that they relate to other
`
`Defendants and/or third parties. Simmons admits that it has ownership and control over aspects
`
`of their respective production, including processing and selling. As the term “tightly control” in
`
`the first sentence of Paragraph 6 is imprecise, Simmons lacks knowledge or information sufficient
`
`to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in that sentence and therefore denies
`
`them. Simmons denies any remaining allegations in Paragraph 6.
`
`High barriers to entry exist in the broiler chicken market. Entry into the
`7.
`market would cost in excess of $100 million, and no company has created a new poultry
`company from scratch in decades.
`
`ANSWER: As the term “high barriers” is imprecise, Simmons 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 that the allegations in Paragraph 7 relate to barriers or costs that third
`
`parties would face in entering the Broiler market, Simmons lacks knowledge or information
`
`sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of those allegations and therefore deny them. Simmons
`
`denies any remaining allegations in Paragraph 7.
`
`B.
`
`
`Summary of Defendants’ Conspiracy
`
`Defendants implemented their conspiracy through multiple means and
`8.
`methods. For example:
`• Defendants coordinated unprecedented cuts in the supply of broiler
`chickens, including the purposeful destruction of breeder hens and eggs;
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case: 1:16-cv-08637 Document #: 7681 Filed: 04/25/25 Page 8 of 590 PageID #:671478
`
`
`
`• 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 of 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: Simmons denies the existence of and participation in DAPs’ alleged
`
`conspiracy. Simmons denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 8.
`
`Numerous “plus factors” also existed in the broiler industry during the
`9.
`relevant 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
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case: 1:16-cv-08637 Document #: 7681 Filed: 04/25/25 Page 9 of 590 PageID #:671479
`
`
`
`C.
`
`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- 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: Simmons denies the allegations in Paragraph 9.
`
`Defendants’ Coordinated Supply Restrictions
`
`
`Defendants curtailed the supply of chickens in the market on the front end
`10
`via 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: Simmons denies the existence of and participation in DAPs’ alleged
`
`conspiracy. Simmons lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of
`
`any allegations in Paragraph 10 that relate to other Defendants and/or third parties, and therefore
`
`Simmons denies the allegations in Paragraph 10 to the extent that they relate to other Defendants
`
`and/or third parties. Simmons 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. Simmons
`
`denies that any such production decisions were coordinated or made pursuant to a conspiracy or
`
`agreement. Simmons denies any remaining allegations in Paragraph 10.
`
`Historically, when faced with low market prices, Defendants relied
`11.
`primarily on 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: Simmons lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to
`
`the truth of any allegations in Paragraph 11 that relate to other Defendants and/or third parties, and
`
`therefore Simmons denies the allegations in Paragraph 11 to the extent that they relate to other
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case: 1:16-cv-08637 Document #: 7681 Filed: 04/25/25 Page 10 of 590 PageID #:671480
`
`
`
`Defendants and/or third parties. Simmons 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.
`
`Simmons denies that any such production decisions were coordinated or made pursuant to a
`
`conspiracy or agreement. Simmons denies any remaining allegations in Paragraph 11.
`
`Prior to the relevant period, Defendants’ pattern of annual increases in
`12.
`chicken 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: Simmons 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
`13.
`in the 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 the extent the allegations in Paragraph 13 characterize or describe an
`
`unidentified 2009 industry publication, Simmons denies any characterization or description that is
`
`inconsistent with the referenced source. Simmons denies any remaining allegations in Paragraph
`
`13.
`
`In 2008, faced with dropping prices and low profits, Defendants collectively
`14.
`began cutting their ability to ramp up production by materially reducing their breeder
`flocks.
`
`ANSWER: Simmons denies the existence of and participation in DAPs’ alleged
`
`conspiracy. Simmons lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of
`
`any allegations in Paragraph 14 that relate to other Defendants and/or third parties, and therefore
`
`Simmons denies the allegations in Paragraph 14 to the extent that they relate to other Defendants
`
`and/or third parties. Simmons 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. Simmons
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case: 1:16-cv-08637 Document #: 7681 Filed: 04/25/25 Page 11 of 590 PageID #:671481
`
`
`
`denies that any such production decisions were coordinated or made pursuant to a conspiracy or
`
`agreement. Simmons denies any remaining allegations in Paragraph 14.
`
`Defendants abandoned their traditional, short-term production cuts and
`15.
`instituted 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.
`
`ANSWER: Simmons denies the existence of and participation in DAPs’ alleged
`
`conspiracy. Simmons lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of
`
`any allegations in Paragraph 15 that relate to other Defendants and/or third parties, and therefore
`
`Simmons denies the allegations in Paragraph 15 to the extent that they relate to other Defendants
`
`and/or third parties. Simmons 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. Simmons
`
`denies that any such production decisions were coordinated or made pursuant to a conspiracy or
`
`agreement. Simmons denies any remaining allegations in Paragraph 15.
`
`Defendants’ collective market-changing cuts to breeder flocks – a first
`16.
`round from 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: Simmons denies the existence of and participation in DAPs’ alleged
`
`conspiracy. Simmons lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of
`
`any allegations in Paragraph 16 that relate to other Defendants and/or third parties, and therefore
`
`Simmons denies the allegations in Paragraph 15 to the extent that they relate to other Defendants
`
`and/or third parties. Simmons 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. Simmons
`
`denies that any such production decisions were coordinated or made pursuant to a conspiracy or
`
`agreement. Simmons denies any remaining allegations in Paragraph 16.
`
`17.
`
`Defendants’ joint efforts to impose supply-side “discipline” included,
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case: 1:16-cv-08637 Document #: 7681 Filed: 04/25/25 Page 12 of 590 PageID #:671482
`
`
`
`among other 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: Simmons denies the allegations in Paragraph 17.
`
`Defendants were able to facilitate, monitor and police their coordinated
`18.
`output restriction scheme by, among other things, communicating through third parties
`including Agri Stats and Urner Barry (a private commodity price reporting service).
`
`ANSWER: Simmons denies the allegations in Paragraph 18.
`
`Defendants also were able to facilitate, monitor and police their coordinated
`19.
`output restriction scheme by using reports purchased, at significant cost, from Agri Stats,
`a former subsidiary of global pharmaceutical company Eli Lilly & Co.
`
`ANSWER: Simmons denies the allegations in Paragraph 19.
`
`Agri Stats collected detailed, proprietary data from all Defendants,
`20.
`including data detailing the housing used, breed of chicks, average size, and production
`and breeder flock levels.
`
`ANSWER: Simmons lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to
`
`the truth of any allegations in Paragraph 20 that relate to other Defendants and/or third parties, and
`
`therefore Simmons denies the allegations in Paragraph 20 to the extent that they relate to other
`
`Defendants and/or third parties. Simmons refers to Agri Stats reports for their contents and denies
`
`any characterization or description that is inconsistent therewith. Simmons denies any remaining
`
`allegations in Paragraph 20.
`
`The Agri Stats data was in theory supposed to be anonymized. But by design,
`21.
`Defendants could identify and track their purported competitors’ production and output
`activities to ensure that others were following suit on implementing the coordinated output
`restrictions. Defendants devoted significant time and resources to working collectively to
`de-anonymize Agri Stats data.
`
`ANSWER: Simmons denies the existence of and participation in DAPs’ alleged
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case: 1:16-cv-08637 Document #: 7681 Filed: 04/25/25 Page 13 of 590 PageID #:671483
`
`
`
`conspiracy. Simmons admits that Agri Stats reported anonymized and historical information for
`
`pro-competitive benchmarking purposes and refer to Agri Stats reports for their contents, but
`
`otherwise deny any characterization of Agri Stats reports in Paragraph 21. Simmons lacks
`
`knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of any allegations in Paragraph
`
`21 that relate to other Defendants and/or third parties, and therefore Simmons denies the
`
`allegations in Paragraph 21 to the extent that they relate to other Defendants and/or third parties.
`
`Simmons denies the allegations in the second sentence of Paragraph 21 and any remaining
`
`allegations in Paragraph 21.
`
`Defendants’ coordinated effort reflected their expectation that higher profit
`22.
`margins would result from coordinated production cuts. Defendants expected that
`coordinated production cuts would also allow them to more quickly capitalize on those
`inflated non-competitive prices.
`
`ANSWER: Simmons denies the allegations in Paragraph 22.
`
`D.
`
`Defendants’ Manipulation of the Georgia Dock Price Index
`
`
`Another aspect of Defendants’ conspiracy to illegally increase and
`23.
`maintain chicken prices was the manipulation and artificial inflation of prices on the
`“Georgia Dock,” a widely used weekly benchmark price compiled and published by the
`Poultry Market News division (the “PMN”) of the Georgia Department of Agriculture (the
`“GDA”).
`
`ANSWER: Simmons denies the existence of and participation in Plaintiffs’ alleged
`
`conspiracy. Simmons admits that the Georgia Department of Agriculture published the Georgia
`
`Dock Index at certain times during the Relevant Period1 but deny the remaining allegations in
`
`Paragraph 23.
`
`Starting