Case: 1:16-cv-08637 Document #: 7687 Filed: 04/25/25 Page 1 of 556 PageID #:675370
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
`EASTERN DIVISION
`
`IN RE BROILER CHICKEN ANTITRUST
`LITIGATION
`
`Civil Action No. 1:16-cv-08637
`
`Judge Thomas M. Durkin
`
`THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO:
`
`Magistrate Judge Jeffrey T. Gilbert
`
`All Track 2 Direct Action Plaintiffs
`
`PUBLIC REDACTED VERSION
`
`MAR-JAC’S ANSWER TO TRACK 2
`DIRECT ACTION PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED
`CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`

`

`Case: 1:16-cv-08637 Document #: 7687 Filed: 04/25/25 Page 2 of 556 PageID #:675371
`
`
`
`Defendants Mar-Jac Poultry, Inc., Mar-Jac Poultry MS, LLC, Mar-Jac Poultry AL, LLC,
`
`Mar-Jac AL/MS, Inc., Mar-Jac Poultry, LLC, and Mar-Jac Holdings, Inc., by and through their
`
`undersigned counsel, submit their answer (“Answer”) and set forth their affirmative defenses to
`
`Track 2 Direct Action Plaintiffs’ (“Plaintiffs”) Second Amended Consolidated Complaint
`
`(“Complaint”) And Demand For Jury Trial (ECF No. 5456), and any subsequently filed joinders
`
`thereto, as follows. “Mar-Jac” or “Mar-Jac Defendants” means the foregoing Defendants
`
`collectively, and in some contexts means at least one, but not necessarily all, of those Defendants.
`
`The Mar-Jac Defendants deny each and every allegation in Plaintiffs’ Complaint except as expressly
`
`admitted below.
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION1
`
`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
`
`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
`
`
`1 Mar-Jac includes Plaintiffs’ headers for the convenience of the Court. These headers contain no factual
`allegations to which a response is required. To the extent a response is required, Mar-Jac denies all factual
`allegations contained in Plaintiffs’ headers.
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`
`
`Case: 1:16-cv-08637 Document #: 7687 Filed: 04/25/25 Page 3 of 556 PageID #:675372
`
`
`
`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).
`
`
`ANSWER: Plaintiffs’ “Introduction” contains no factual allegations to which a response
`
`is required. Instead, it contains legal conclusions and characterizations of this action, 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, Mar-Jac denies all allegations in the Introduction,
`
`including those in the accompanying Footnotes.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Case: 1:16-cv-08637 Document #: 7687 Filed: 04/25/25 Page 4 of 556 PageID #:675373
`
`
`
`II.
`
`CHART OF DIRECT ACTION PLAINTIFF CASES
`
`[Plaintiffs’ Chart of Direct Action Plaintiffs’ Cases and accompanying Footnotes 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 Plaintiff Cases” and accompanying
`
`Footnotes contain no factual allegations to which a response is required. Instead, the chart and
`
`Footnotes contain Plaintiffs’ characterizations of named parties, this action, and claims included in
`
`multiple complaints by multiple parties. To the extent a response is required, Mar-Jac 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. Mar-Jac
`
`further denies each statement in the chart and Footnotes that purports to describe a Claim or Count
`
`of the Complaint as being asserted against a Defendant that is not named in the specific allegations
`
`of such Count. Mar-Jac denies the remaining allegations in the chart and Footnotes.
`
`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
`1.
`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: Mar-Jac denies the existence of and participation in the alleged conspiracy.2
`
`Mar-Jac lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of any allegations
`
`in this Paragraph that relate to other Defendants and/or third parties, and therefore denies the
`
`
`2 Mar-Jac incorporates by reference throughout this Answer its denial of the existence of and its participation
`in the alleged conspiracy even if it is not explicitly restated in response to every Paragraph.
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`
`Case: 1:16-cv-08637 Document #: 7687 Filed: 04/25/25 Page 5 of 556 PageID #:675374
`
`
`
`allegations in this Paragraph to the extent that they relate to other Defendants and/or third parties.
`
`Mar-Jac denies the remaining allegations in this Paragraph.
`
`Defendants’ multi-faceted conspiracy manifested itself in many different ways
`2.
`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 chicken meat throughout the
`United States.
`
`ANSWER: Mar-Jac denies the existence of and participation in the alleged conspiracy.
`
`Mar-Jac lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of any allegations
`
`in this Paragraph that relate to other Defendants and/or third parties, and therefore denies the
`
`allegations in this Paragraph to the extent that they relate to other Defendants and/or third parties.
`
`Mar-Jac denies the remaining allegations in this Paragraph.
`
`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: Mar-Jac denies the existence of and participation in the alleged conspiracy.
`
`Mar-Jac lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of any allegations
`
`in this Paragraph that relate to other Defendants and/or third parties, and therefore denies the
`
`allegations in this Paragraph to the extent that they relate to other Defendants and/or third parties.
`
`Mar-Jac admits that it and others have reached settlements with a putative class of direct purchasers,
`
`which have been approved by the Court. To the extent the allegations in this Paragraph characterize
`
`or describe those settlement agreements, Mar-Jac denies any characterization or description that is
`
`inconsistent with the referenced sources. Mar-Jac denies the remaining allegations in this Paragraph.
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`
`Case: 1:16-cv-08637 Document #: 7687 Filed: 04/25/25 Page 6 of 556 PageID #:675375
`
`
`
`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, at
`6.
`
`
`ANSWER: Mar-Jac denies the existence of and participation in the alleged conspiracy.
`
`Mar-Jac lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of any allegations
`
`in this Paragraph that relate to other Defendants and/or third parties, and therefore denies the
`
`allegations in this Paragraph to the extent that they relate to other Defendants and/or third parties.
`
`Mar-Jac denies the remaining allegations in this Paragraph.
`
`“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.
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`
`Case: 1:16-cv-08637 Document #: 7687 Filed: 04/25/25 Page 7 of 556 PageID #:675376
`
`
`
`ANSWER: Mar-Jac lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of any allegations in this Paragraph that relate to other Defendants and/or third parties, and
`
`therefore denies the allegations in this Paragraph to the extent that they relate to other Defendants
`
`and/or third parties. The first sentence in this Paragraph contains Plaintiffs’ explanation of a defined
`
`term used in their Complaint, to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required,
`
`Mar-Jac admits that Plaintiffs have defined “Broilers” in their Complaint as described in the first
`
`sentence in this Paragraph. Mar-Jac admits that Broilers3 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 in this Paragraph and therefore denies
`
`them. Mar-Jac lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the precise dollar
`
`amount of annual wholesale revenue alleged in the third sentence in this Paragraph and therefore
`
`denies that allegation. Mar-Jac denies the remaining allegations in this Paragraph.
`
`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: Mar-Jac lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of any allegations in this Paragraph that relate to other Defendants and/or third parties, and
`
`therefore denies the allegations to the extent that they relate to other Defendants and/or third parties.
`
`Mar-Jac admits that it has ownership and control over aspects of its production, including processing
`
`and selling. As the term “tightly control” in the first sentence is imprecise, Mar-Jac lacks knowledge
`
`or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in that sentence
`
`
`3 To the extent Mar Jac refers to “Broilers” in this Answer, Mar Jac refers to Broilers as defined by Plaintiffs
`in the Complaint.
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`
`Case: 1:16-cv-08637 Document #: 7687 Filed: 04/25/25 Page 8 of 556 PageID #:675377
`
`
`
`and therefore denies them. Mar-Jac denies the remaining allegations in this Paragraph.
`
`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, Mar-Jac lacks knowledge or
`
`information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in this Paragraph and therefore
`
`denies them. To the extent that the allegations relate to barriers or costs that third parties would face
`
`in entering the Broiler market, Mar-Jac lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
`
`as to the truth of those allegations and therefore denies them. Mar-Jac denies the remaining
`
`allegations.
`
`Summary of Defendants’ Conspiracy
`
`B.
`
`
`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;
`• 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
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`
`Case: 1:16-cv-08637 Document #: 7687 Filed: 04/25/25 Page 9 of 556 PageID #:675378
`
`
`
`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: Mar-Jac denies the existence of and participation in the alleged conspiracy.
`
`Mar-Jac lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of any allegations
`
`in this Paragraph that relate to other Defendants and/or third parties, and therefore denies the
`
`allegations in this Paragraph to the extent that they relate to other Defendants and/or third parties.
`
`Mar-Jac denies the remaining allegations in this Paragraph.
`
`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 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: Mar-Jac denies the existence of and participation in the alleged conspiracy.
`
`This Paragraph consists of Plaintiffs’ legal conclusions, to which no response is required. To the
`
`extent a response is required, Mar-Jac denies the allegations in this Paragraph. Mar-Jac lacks
`
`knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of any allegations in this
`
`Paragraph that relate to other Defendants and/or third parties, and therefore denies the allegations in
`
`this Paragraph to the extent that they relate to other Defendants and/or third parties. Mar-Jac denies
`
`8
`
`

`

`
`Case: 1:16-cv-08637 Document #: 7687 Filed: 04/25/25 Page 10 of 556 PageID #:675379
`
`
`
`the remaining allegations in this Paragraph.
`
`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: Mar-Jac denies the existence of and participation in the alleged conspiracy.
`
`Mar-Jac lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of any allegations
`
`in this Paragraph that relate to other Defendants and/or third parties, and therefore denies the
`
`allegations to the extent that they relate to other Defendants and/or third parties. Mar-Jac admits it
`
`plans and executes its Broiler production each year based on its own, unilateral business judgment
`
`of what is in its independent interest. Mar-Jac denies that any such production decisions were
`
`coordinated or made pursuant to a conspiracy or agreement. Mar-Jac denies the remaining
`
`allegations in this Paragraph.
`
`Historically, when faced with low market prices, Defendants relied primarily
`11.
`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: Mar-Jac lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of any allegations in this Paragraph that relate to other Defendants and/or third parties, and
`
`therefore denies the allegations in this Paragraph to the extent that they relate to other Defendants
`
`and/or third parties. Mar-Jac 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. Mar-Jac denies that
`
`any such production decisions were coordinated or made pursuant to a conspiracy or agreement.
`
`Mar-Jac denies the remaining allegations in this Paragraph.
`
`12.
`
`Prior to the relevant period, Defendants’ pattern of annual increases in
`
`9
`
`

`

`
`Case: 1:16-cv-08637 Document #: 7687 Filed: 04/25/25 Page 11 of 556 PageID #:675380
`
`
`
`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: Mar-Jac lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the allegations in this Paragraph 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 this Paragraph characterize or describe an
`
`unidentified 2009 industry publication, Mar-Jac denies any characterization or description that is
`
`inconsistent with the referenced source. Mar-Jac denies the remaining allegations in this Paragraph.
`
`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: Mar-Jac denies the existence of and participation in the alleged conspiracy.
`
`Mar-Jac lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of any allegations
`
`in this Paragraph that relate to other Defendants and/or third parties, and therefore denies the
`
`allegations to the extent that they relate to other Defendants and/or third parties. Mar-Jac 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. Mar-Jac denies that any such production decisions were
`
`coordinated or made pursuant to a conspiracy or agreement. Mar-Jac denies the remaining
`
`allegations in this Paragraph.
`
`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: Mar-Jac denies the existence of and participation in the alleged conspiracy.
`
`Mar-Jac lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of any allegations
`
`10
`
`

`

`
`Case: 1:16-cv-08637 Document #: 7687 Filed: 04/25/25 Page 12 of 556 PageID #:675381
`
`
`
`in this Paragraph that relate to other Defendants and/or third parties, and therefore denies the
`
`allegations to the extent that they relate to other Defendants and/or third parties. Mar-Jac 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. Mar-Jac denies that any such production decisions were
`
`coordinated or made pursuant to a conspiracy or agreement. Mar-Jac denies the remaining
`
`allegations in this Paragraph.
`
`Defendants’ collective market-changing cuts to breeder flocks – a first round
`16.
`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: Mar-Jac denies the existence of and participation in the alleged conspiracy.
`
`Mar-Jac lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of any allegations
`
`in this Paragraph that relate to other Defendants and/or third parties, and therefore denies the
`
`allegations in this Paragraph to the extent that they relate to other Defendants and/or third parties.
`
`Mar-Jac 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. Mar-Jac denies the remaining allegations in
`
`this Paragraph.
`
`Defendants’ joint efforts to impose supply-side “discipline” included, among
`17.
`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: Mar-Jac denies the existence of and participation in the alleged conspiracy.
`
`Mar-Jac lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of any allegations
`
`in this Paragraph that relate to other Defendants and/or third parties, and therefore denies the
`
`allegations to the extent that they relate to other Defendants and/or third parties. Mar-Jac denies the
`
`11
`
`

`

`
`Case: 1:16-cv-08637 Document #: 7687 Filed: 04/25/25 Page 13 of 556 PageID #:675382
`
`
`
`remaining allegations in this Paragraph.
`
`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: Mar-Jac denies the allegations in this Paragraph.
`
`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: Mar-Jac denies the allegations in this Paragraph.
`
`Agri Stats collected detailed, proprietary data from all Defendants, including
`20.
`data detailing the housing used, breed of chicks, average size, and production and breeder
`flock levels.
`
`ANSWER: Mar-Jac lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of any allegations in this Paragraph that relate to other Defendants and/or third parties, and
`
`therefore denies the allegations to the extent that they relate to other Defendants and/or third parties.
`
`Mar-Jac admits that Agri Stats collects information from it, and that Agri Stats has reported
`
`anonymized and historical information to it for pro-competitive benchmarking purposes. Mar-Jac
`
`refers to Agri Stats reports for their contents and denies any characterization or description that is
`
`inconsistent with the referenced source. Mar-Jac denies the remaining allegations in this Paragraph.
`
`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: Mar