Case: 1:21-cv-03002 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/04/21 Page 1 of 59 PageID #:1
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
`
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF
`THE ANTITRUST LAWS
`
`
`
`Jury Trial Demanded
`
`
`ACTION MEAT DISTRIBUTORS, INC.;
`TOPCO ASSOCIATES, LLC; ALEX LEE,
`INC. AND MERCHANTS
`DISTRIBUTORS, LLC; ASSOCIATED
`FOOD STORES, INC.; BROOKSHIRE
`GROCERY COMPANY; CERTCO, INC.;
`COLORADO BOXED BEEF CO.; THE
`GOLUB CORPORATION; NICHOLAS &
`CO., INC.; PFD ENTERPRISES, INC.;
`SPARTANNASH COMPANY;
`SPRINGFIELD GROCER COMPANY; THE
`DISTRIBUTION GROUP d/b/a VAN
`EERDEN FOODSERVICE CO.; TROYER
`FOODS, INC.; and URM STORES, INC.,
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`-vs.-
`
`AGRI STATS, INC.; CLEMENS FOOD
`GROUP, LLC; CLEMENS FAMILY
`CORPORATION; HORMEL FOODS
`CORPORATION; HORMEL FOODS LLC;
`JBS USA FOOD COMPANY; SEABOARD
`FOODS LLC; SEABOARD
`CORPORATION; SMITHFIELD FOODS,
`INC.; TRIUMPH FOODS, LLC; TYSON
`FOODS, INC.; TYSON PREPARED
`FOODS, INC.; and TYSON FRESH
`MEATS, INC.,
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case: 1:21-cv-03002 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/04/21 Page 2 of 59 PageID #:2
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page(s)
`
`I.
`
`NATURE OF ACTION ...................................................................................................... 1
`
`II.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE ......................................................................................... 3
`
`III.
`
`PARTIES ............................................................................................................................ 4
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Plaintiffs .................................................................................................................. 4
`
`Defendants .............................................................................................................. 8
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`e.
`
`f.
`
`g.
`
`h.
`
`i.
`
`Agri Stats .................................................................................................... 8
`
`Clemens....................................................................................................... 9
`
`Hormel ...................................................................................................... 10
`
`JBS ............................................................................................................ 10
`
`Seaboard .................................................................................................... 11
`
`Smithfield .................................................................................................. 11
`
`Triumph..................................................................................................... 12
`
`Tyson......................................................................................................... 12
`
`Co-Conspirators ........................................................................................ 13
`
`IV.
`
`FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS ........................................................................................... 14
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Agri Stats’ Detailed Reports Enable the Producer Defendants to
`Accurately Assess and Monitor their Competitors’ Production Levels ................ 17
`
`The Producer Defendants’ Control Over the Production and Supply of
`Pork in the United States....................................................................................... 22
`
`V.
`
`THE PRODUCER DEFENDANTS’ CURTAILMENT OF PORK
`PRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. 36
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`Smithfield .................................................................................................. 38
`
`Tyson......................................................................................................... 39
`
`JBS ............................................................................................................ 39
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case: 1:21-cv-03002 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/04/21 Page 3 of 59 PageID #:3
`
`d.
`
`e.
`
`f.
`
`g.
`
`h.
`
`Hormel ...................................................................................................... 39
`
`Seaboard .................................................................................................... 40
`
`Triumph..................................................................................................... 40
`
`Clemens..................................................................................................... 41
`
`Co-Conspirator Indiana Packers ............................................................... 41
`
`VI. ABNORMAL PRICING AND THE EFFECT ON PLAINTIFFS IN THE FORM
`OF HIGHER PRICES ....................................................................................................... 49
`
`VII. OVERCHARGES FROM THE CARTEL REFLECTED IN HIGHER PORK
`PRICES PLAINTIFFS PAID ........................................................................................... 51
`
`VIII. TOLLING OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS ....................................................... 52
`
`IX. ANTITRUST INJURY ..................................................................................................... 53
`
`X.
`
`VIOLATION OF SECTION 1 OF THE SHERMAN ACT ............................................. 53
`
`XI.
`
`REQUEST FOR RELIEF ................................................................................................. 55
`
`XII.
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ............................................................................................ 56
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case: 1:21-cv-03002 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/04/21 Page 4 of 59 PageID #:4
`
`Plaintiffs Action Meat Distributors, Inc., Topco Associates, LLC, Alex Lee, Inc. and
`
`Merchants Distributors, LLC, Associated Food Stores, Inc., Brookshire Grocery Company,
`
`Certco, Inc., Colorado Boxed Beef Co., The Golub Corporation, Nicholas & Co., Inc., PFD
`
`Enterprises, Inc., SpartanNash Company, Springfield Grocer Company, The Distribution Group
`
`d/b/a Van Eerden Foodservice Co., Troyer Foods, Inc., and URM Stores, Inc. (“Plaintiffs”), by
`
`and through their undersigned attorneys, file this Complaint against Defendants Agri Stats, Inc.
`
`(“Agri Stats”), Clemens Food Group, LLC, The Clemens Family Corporation (“Clemens”),
`
`Hormel Foods Corporation, Hormel Foods, LLC (“Hormel”), JBS USA Food Company (“JBS”
`
`or “JBS USA”), Seaboard Foods LLC, Seaboard Corporation (“Seaboard”), Smithfield Foods,
`
`Inc. (“Smithfield”), Triumph Foods, LLC (“Triumph”), Tyson Foods, Inc., Tyson Prepared
`
`Foods, Inc., and Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc. (“Tyson”). Plaintiffs bring this action against
`
`Defendants for treble damages under the antitrust laws of the United States, and demand a trial
`
`by jury.
`
`I.
`
`NATURE OF ACTION
`
`1.
`
`The pork producer defendants are the leading suppliers of pork in an industry with
`
`approximately $20 billion in annual commerce in the United States. The United States pork
`
`industry is highly concentrated, with a small number of large companies controlling the supply.
`
`Defendants and their co-conspirators collectively control over 80 percent of the wholesale pork
`
`market.
`
`2.
`
`Defendants Agri Stats, Clemens, Hormel, JBS, Seaboard, Smithfield, Triumph,
`
`and Tyson entered, along with Co-Conspirator Indiana Packers Corporation, into a conspiracy
`
`from at least 2009 to the present (the “Conspiracy Period”) to fix, raise, maintain, and stabilize
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case: 1:21-cv-03002 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/04/21 Page 5 of 59 PageID #:5
`
`the price of pork.1 The defendants, other than Agri Stats, are referred to here collectively as the
`
`“Producer Defendants.”
`
`3.
`
`One method by which Defendants implemented and executed their conspiracy was
`
`by coordinating output and limiting production with the intent and expected result of increasing
`
`pork prices in the United States.
`
`4.
`
`In furtherance of their conspiracy, the Producer Defendants exchanged detailed,
`
`competitively sensitive, and closely guarded non-public information about prices, capacity, sales
`
`volume, and demand, including through their co-conspirator, defendant Agri Stats.
`
`5.
`
`Beginning in at least 2009, Defendant Agri Stats began providing highly sensitive
`
`“benchmarking” reports to the Producer Defendants. Benchmarking allows competitors to compare
`
`their profits or performance against that of other companies. Yet Agri Stats’ reports are unlike those
`
`of lawful industry reports; rather, Agri Stats gathers detailed financial and production data from each
`
`of the Producer Defendants and their Co-Conspirator Indiana Packers, standardizes this information,
`
`and produces customized reports and graphs for the conspirators. The type of information available
`
`in these reports is not the type of information that competitors would provide each other in a normal,
`
`competitive market.
`
`6.
`
`On at least a monthly basis, and often far more frequently (e.g., weekly or every other
`
`week), Agri Stats provides the Producer Defendants with current and forward-looking sensitive
`
`information (such as profits, costs, prices and slaughter information), and regularly provides the keys
`
`to deciphering which data belongs to which participant. The effect of this information exchange was
`
`
`1 For the purposes of this complaint, “pork” includes pig meat purchased fresh or frozen, smoked
`ham, sausage, and bacon. From time to time in this complaint, “pork” and “swine” are used
`interchangeably, particularly when referring to the pork or swine industry.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case: 1:21-cv-03002 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/04/21 Page 6 of 59 PageID #:6
`
`to allow the pork producers to monitor each other’s production, and therefore control supply and
`
`price in furtherance of their anticompetitive scheme.
`
`7.
`
`The data exchanged through Agri Stats also bears all the hallmarks of the
`
`enforcement and implementation mechanism of a price-fixing scheme. First, the data is current and
`
`forward-looking – which courts have consistently held has “the greatest potential for generating
`
`anticompetitive effects.” Second, information contained in Agri Stats reports is specific to pork
`
`producers, including information on profits, prices, costs, and production levels; instead of being
`
`aggregated as industry averages to avoid transactional specificity and the easy identification of
`
`specific producers. Third, none of the Agri Stats information was publicly available. Agri Stats is a
`
`subscription service which required the co-conspirators to pay millions of dollars over the
`
`Conspiracy Period – far in excess of any other pricing and production indices. Agri Stats ensured
`
`that its detailed, sensitive business information was available only to the co-conspirators and not to
`
`any buyers in the market. Defendants utilize the information exchanges through Agri Stats in
`
`furtherance of their conspiracy to fix, raise, stabilize, and maintain artificially inflated prices for pork
`
`sold in the United States.
`
`8.
`
`Defendants’ restriction of pork supply had the intended purpose and effect of
`
`increasing pork prices to Plaintiffs. As a result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct, Plaintiffs paid
`
`artificially inflated prices for pork during the Conspiracy Period. Such prices exceeded the amount
`
`they would have paid if the price for pork had been determined by a competitive market. Thus,
`
`Plaintiffs were injured in their businesses or property by Defendants’ unlawful conduct.
`
`II.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`9.
`
`This action arises under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1, and Section
`
`4 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 15(a), and seeks to recover treble damages, costs of suit, and
`
`reasonable attorneys’ fees for the injuries sustained by Plaintiffs resulting from Defendants’
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case: 1:21-cv-03002 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/04/21 Page 7 of 59 PageID #:7
`
`conspiracy to restrain trade in the pork market. The Court has subject matter jurisdiction under
`
`28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1337(a), 1407, and 15 U.S.C. § 15.
`
`10. Venue is proper in this District under 15 U.S.C. §§ 15(a); 22 and 28 U.S.C. §§
`
`1391(b); (c); and (d) because during the relevant period, Defendants resided, transacted business,
`
`were found, or had agents in this District, and a substantial portion of Defendants’ alleged
`
`wrongful conduct affecting interstate trade and commerce was carried out in this District.
`
`11. Defendants are amenable to service of process under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(k)(1)(A)
`
`and the Illinois long-arm statute 734 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/2-209 because each Defendant has
`
`transacted business in this state and because the Illinois long-arm statute extends jurisdiction to
`
`the limits of Due Process, and each Defendant has sufficient minimum contacts with the state of
`
`Illinois to satisfy Due Process.
`
`12. This Court has personal jurisdiction over each Defendant because each Defendant
`
`– throughout the U.S. and including in this District and the state of Illinois – has transacted
`
`business, maintained substantial contacts, or committed overt acts in furtherance of its illegal
`
`scheme and conspiracy. The alleged scheme and conspiracy have been directed at, and had the
`
`intended effect of, causing injury to persons and entities residing in, located in, or doing business
`
`throughout the U.S., including in this District and the state of Illinois.
`
`III.
`
`PARTIES
`
`A.
`
`Plaintiffs
`
`13. Plaintiff Action Meat Distributors, Inc. (“Action Meat”) is a Texas corporation
`
`with its principal place of business in Houston, Texas. From 2009 to the present, Action Meat
`
`and/or its affiliates purchased pork at artificially inflated prices directly from one or more
`
`Producer Defendants, and/or their affiliates or agents, and suffered injury to its business or
`
`property as a direct or proximate result of all Defendants’ wrongful conduct.
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case: 1:21-cv-03002 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/04/21 Page 8 of 59 PageID #:8
`
`14. Plaintiff Topco Associates, LLC (“Topco”) is privately-held company with its
`
`principal place of business in Elk Grove Village, Illinois, within this District. Topco provides
`
`aggregation, innovation and knowledge management solutions for its leading food industry
`
`member-owners and customers, including grocery retailers, wholesalers, and food service
`
`companies. From 2009 to the present, Topco and/or its affiliates purchased pork at artificially
`
`inflated prices directly from one or more Producer Defendants, and/or their affiliates or agents,
`
`and suffered injury to its business or property as a direct or proximate result of all Defendants’
`
`wrongful conduct, and seeks damages from Defendants for all pork purchases it has not assigned
`
`to other parties.
`
`15. Plaintiff Alex Lee, Inc., and its subsidiaries and affiliates Merchants Distributors,
`
`LLC, Lowe’s Food Stores, Inc. and W. Lee Flowers & Company (collectively referred to here as
`
`“Alex Lee”) is a North Carolina corporation with its principal place of business in Hickory,
`
`North Carolina. From 2009 to the present, Alex Lee and/or its affiliates purchased pork at
`
`artificially inflated prices directly from one or more Producer Defendants, and/or their affiliates
`
`or agents, and suffered injury to its business or property as a direct or proximate result of all
`
`Defendants’ wrongful conduct.
`
`16. Plaintiff Associated Food Stores, Inc. (“Associated Food”) is a Utah corporation
`
`with its principal place of business in Salt Lake City, Utah. From 2009 to the present,
`
`Associated Food and/or its affiliates purchased pork at artificially inflated prices directly from
`
`one or more Producer Defendants, and/or their affiliates or agents, and suffered injury to its
`
`business or property as a direct or proximate result of all Defendants’ wrongful conduct.
`
`17. Plaintiff Brookshire Grocery Company (“Brookshire’s”) is a Texas corporation
`
`with its principal place of business in Tyler, Texas. From 2009 to the present, Brookshire’s
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case: 1:21-cv-03002 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/04/21 Page 9 of 59 PageID #:9
`
`and/or its affiliates purchased pork at artificially inflated prices directly from one or more
`
`Producer Defendants, and/or their affiliates or agents, and suffered injury to its business or
`
`property as a direct or proximate result of all Defendants’ wrongful conduct.
`
`18. Plaintiff Certco, Inc. (“Certco”) is a Wisconsin corporation with its principal place
`
`of business in Madison, Wisconsin. From 2009 to the present, Certco and/or its affiliates
`
`purchased pork at artificially inflated prices directly from one or more Producer Defendants,
`
`and/or their affiliates or agents, and suffered injury to its business or property as a direct or
`
`proximate result of all Defendants’ wrongful conduct.
`
`19.
`
`Plaintiff Colorado Boxed Beef Co. (“CBBC”) is a Florida corporation with its
`
`principal place of business in Lakeland, Florida. From 2009 to the present, CBBC and/or its
`
`affiliates purchased pork at artificially inflated prices directly from one or more Producer
`
`Defendants, and/or their affiliates or agents, and suffered injury to its business or property as a
`
`direct or proximate result of all Defendants’ wrongful conduct.
`
`20.
`
`Plaintiff The Golub Corporation (“Golub”), which does business under the
`
`banners Price Chopper Supermarkets, Market Bistro, and Market 32, is a New York corporation
`
`with its principal place of business in Schenectady, New York. From 2009 to the present, Golub
`
`and/or its affiliates purchased pork at artificially inflated prices directly from one or more
`
`Producer Defendants, and/or their affiliates or agents, and suffered injury to its business or
`
`property as a direct or proximate result of all Defendants’ wrongful conduct.
`
`21.
`
` Plaintiff Nicholas & Co., Inc. (“Nicholas”) is a Utah corporation with its
`
`principal place of business in Salt Lake City, Utah. From 2009 to the present, Nicholas and/or its
`
`affiliates purchased pork at artificially inflated prices directly from one or more Producer
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case: 1:21-cv-03002 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/04/21 Page 10 of 59 PageID #:10
`
`Defendants, and/or their affiliates or agents, and suffered injury to its business or property as a
`
`direct or proximate result of all Defendants’ wrongful conduct.
`
`22.
`
`Plaintiff PFD Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a Pacific Food Distributors (“PFD”) is an
`
`Oregon corporation with its principal place of business in Clackamas, Oregon. From 2009 to the
`
`present, PFD and/or its affiliates purchased pork at artificially inflated prices directly from one or
`
`more Producer Defendants, and/or their affiliates or agents, and suffered injury to its business or
`
`property as a direct or proximate result of all Defendants’ wrongful conduct.
`
`23.
`
`Plaintiff SpartanNash Company (“SpartanNash”), formerly known as Spartan
`
`Stores, Inc., is a Michigan corporation with its principal place of business in Byron Center,
`
`Michigan. As used herein, “SpartanNash” refers to SpartanNash Company, Spartan Stores, Inc.,
`
`Nash-Finch Company, Spartan Stores Distribution, LLC and affiliated companies. From 2009 to
`
`the present, SpartanNash and/or its affiliates purchased pork at artificially inflated prices directly
`
`from one or more of the Producer Defendants and/or their affiliates or agents, and suffered injury
`
`to its business or property as a direct and proximate result of all Defendants’ wrongful conduct.
`
`24.
`
`Plaintiff Springfield Grocer Company, Inc. (“Springfield”) is a Missouri
`
`corporation with its principal place of business in Springfield, Missouri. From 2009 to the
`
`present, Springfield and/or its affiliates purchased pork at artificially inflated prices directly from
`
`one or more of the Producer Defendants and/or their affiliates or agents, and suffered injury to its
`
`business or property as a direct and proximate result of all Defendants’ wrongful conduct.
`
`25.
`
`Plaintiff The Distribution Group, d/b/a Van Eerden Foodservice Co. (“Van
`
`Eerden”) is a Michigan corporation with its principal place of business in Grand Rapids,
`
`Michigan. From 2009 to the present, Van Eerden and/or its affiliates purchased pork at
`
`artificially inflated prices directly from one or more Producer Defendants, and/or their affiliates
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case: 1:21-cv-03002 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/04/21 Page 11 of 59 PageID #:11
`
`or agents, and suffered injury to its business or property as a direct or proximate result of all
`
`Defendants’ wrongful conduct.
`
`26.
`
`Plaintiff Troyer Foods, Inc. (“Troyer”) is an Indiana corporation with its principal
`
`place of business in Goshen, Indiana. From 2009 to the present, Troyer and/or its affiliates
`
`purchased pork at artificially inflated prices directly from one or more Producer Defendants,
`
`and/or their affiliates or agents, and suffered injury to its business or property as a direct or
`
`proximate result of all Defendants’ wrongful conduct.
`
`27.
`
`Plaintiff URM Stores, Inc. (“URM”) is a Washington corporation with its
`
`principal place of business in Spokane, Washington. From 2009 to the present, URM and/or its
`
`affiliates purchased pork at artificially inflated prices directly from one or more Producer
`
`Defendants, and/or their affiliates or agents, and suffered injury to its business or property as a
`
`direct or proximate result of all Defendants’ wrongful conduct.
`
`B.
`
`Defendants
`
`a.
`
`Agri Stats
`
`28.
`
`Agri Stats, Inc. is an Indiana corporation located in Fort Wayne, Indiana and was,
`
`for a portion of the Conspiracy Period, a subsidiary of Eli Lilly & Co., a publicly-held
`
`corporation headquartered in Indianapolis. Agri Stats is now a wholly owned subsidiary of Agri
`
`Stats Omega Holding Co, LP, a limited partnership based in Indiana. Agri Stats is a co-
`
`conspirator of the Producer Defendants and has knowingly played an important and active role as
`
`participant in, and a facilitator of, Defendants’ collusive scheme detailed in this Complaint. Agri
`
`Stats has a unique and deep relationship with the pork industry generally, and specifically with
`
`each of the Defendants identified below, all of which are Agri Stats’ primary customers.
`
`Defendants Clemens, Hormel, JBS USA, Seaboard, Triumph, Smithfield and Tyson, and Co-
`
`Conspirator Indiana Packers, are all Agri Stats subscribers and report a wide variety of
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case: 1:21-cv-03002 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/04/21 Page 12 of 59 PageID #:12
`
`information to Agri Stats, which, according to a 2016 Eli Lilly earnings call, is used by “over
`
`90% of the poultry and pig market” in the United States.
`
`29.
`
`All of Agri Stats’ wrongful actions described in this Complaint are part of, and in
`
`furtherance of, the unlawful conduct alleged herein, and were authorized, ordered, or engaged in
`
`by Agri Stats’ various officers, agents, employers or other representatives while actively engaged
`
`in the management and operation of Agri Stats’ business affairs within the course and scope of
`
`their duties and employment, or with Agri Stats’ actual apparent or ostensible authority. Agri
`
`Stats used the instrumentalities of interstate commerce to facilitate the conspiracy, and its
`
`conduct was within the flow of, was intended to, and did have, a substantial effect on the
`
`interstate commerce of the U.S., including in this District.
`
`b.
`
`Clemens
`
`30.
`
`Clemens Food Group, LLC is a limited-liability company headquartered in
`
`Hatfield, Pennsylvania. During the Conspiracy Period, Clemens Food Group, LLC and/or its
`
`predecessors, wholly owned or controlled subsidiaries, or affiliates sold pork in interstate
`
`commerce, directly or through its wholly owned or controlled affiliates, to purchasers in the
`
`United States, including in this District.
`
`31.
`
`The Clemens Family Corporation is a Pennsylvania corporation headquartered in
`
`Hatfield, Pennsylvania, and the parent company of Clemens Food Group, LLC. During the
`
`Conspiracy Period, The Clemens Family Corporation and/or its predecessors, wholly owned or
`
`controlled subsidiaries, or affiliates sold pork in interstate commerce, directly or through its
`
`wholly owned or controlled affiliates, to purchasers in the United States, including in this
`
`District.
`
`32.
`
`The Clemens Food Group, LLC and the Clemens Family Corporation are referred
`
`to here collectively as “Clemens.” Clemens reports a wide variety of pork data to Agri Stats,
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case: 1:21-cv-03002 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/04/21 Page 13 of 59 PageID #:13
`
`including, without limitation, highly-detailed, confidential information regarding its production
`
`and sales of pork.
`
`c.
`
`Hormel
`
`33.
`
`Hormel Foods Corporation is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Austin,
`
`Minnesota. During the Conspiracy Period, Hormel Foods Corporation and/or its predecessors,
`
`wholly owned or controlled subsidiaries, or affiliates, including but not limited to Hormel Foods,
`
`LLC sold pork in interstate commerce, directly or through its wholly owned or controlled
`
`affiliates, to purchasers in the United States, including in this District.
`
`34.
`
`Hormel Foods, LLC is a Minnesota corporation headquartered in Austin,
`
`Minnesota. Hormel Foods, LLC is a wholly owned subsidiary of Defendant Hormel Foods
`
`Corporation. During the Conspiracy Period, Hormel Foods Corporation and/or its predecessors,
`
`wholly owned or controlled subsidiaries, or affiliates sold pork in interstate commerce, directly
`
`or through its wholly owned or controlled affiliates, to purchasers in the United States, including
`
`in this District.
`
`35.
`
`Hormel Foods, LLC and Hormel Foods Corporation are referred to here
`
`collectively as “Hormel.” Hormel reports a wide variety of pork data to Agri Stats, including,
`
`without limitation, highly-detailed, confidential information regarding its production and sales of
`
`pork.
`
`d.
`
`JBS
`
`36.
`
`JBS USA Food Company is one of the world’s largest beef and pork processing
`
`companies and a wholly owned subsidiary of JBS USA Food Company Holdings, which holds a
`
`78.5 percent controlling interest in Pilgrim’s Pride Corporation, one of the largest chicken-
`
`producing companies in the world, which recently plead guilty to antitrust violations in the
`
`chickens market. JBS USA Food Company is a Delaware corporation, headquartered in Greeley,
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case: 1:21-cv-03002 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/04/21 Page 14 of 59 PageID #:14
`
`Colorado, and reports a wide variety of pork data to Agri Stats, including, without limitation,
`
`highly-detailed, confidential information regarding its production and sales of pork. During the
`
`Conspiracy Period, JBS USA Food Company and/or its predecessors, wholly owned or
`
`controlled subsidiaries, or affiliates sold pork in interstate commerce, directly or through its
`
`wholly owned or controlled affiliates, to purchasers in the United States, including in this
`
`District.
`
`e.
`
`Seaboard
`
`37.
`
`Seaboard Foods LLC is a limited-liability company headquartered in Shawnee
`
`Mission, Kansas, and is a wholly owned subsidiary of Seaboard Corporation. During the
`
`Conspiracy Period, Seaboard Foods LLC and/or its predecessors, wholly owned or controlled
`
`subsidiaries, or affiliates sold pork in interstate commerce, directly or through its wholly owned
`
`or controlled affiliates, to purchasers in the United States, including in this District.
`
`38.
`
`Seaboard Corporation is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Merriam,
`
`Kansas, and is the parent company of Seaboard Foods LLC. During the Conspiracy Period,
`
`Seaboard Corporation and/or its predecessors, wholly owned or controlled subsidiaries, or
`
`affiliates sold pork in interstate commerce, directly or through its wholly owned or controlled
`
`affiliates, to purchasers in the United States, including in this District.
`
`39.
`
`Seaboard Corporation and Seaboard Foods LLC are referred to here collectively
`
`as “Seaboard.” Seaboard reports a wide variety of pork data to Agri Stats, including, without
`
`limitation, highly-detailed, confidential information regarding its production and sales of pork.
`
`f.
`
`Smithfield
`
`40.
`
`Smithfield Foods, Inc. is incorporated in the Commonwealth of Virginia, and an
`
`indirect wholly owned subsidiary of WH Group Limited, a Chinese company. Smithfield Foods
`
`is headquartered in Smithfield, Virginia, and reports a wide variety of pork data to Agri Stats,
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case: 1:21-cv-03002 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/04/21 Page 15 of 59 PageID #:15
`
`including, without limitation, highly-detailed, confidential information regarding its production
`
`and sales of pork. During the Conspiracy Period, Smithfield Foods, Inc. and/or its predecessors,
`
`wholly owned or controlled subsidiaries, or affiliates sold pork in interstate commerce, directly
`
`or through its wholly owned or controlled affiliates, to purchasers in the United States, including
`
`in this District.
`
`g.
`
`Triumph
`
`41.
`
`Triumph Foods, LLC is a limited-liability company headquartered in St. Joseph,
`
`Missouri, and reports a wide variety of pork data to Agri Stats, including, without limitation,
`
`highly-detailed, confidential information regarding its production and sales of pork. During the
`
`Conspiracy Period, Triumph Foods, LLC and/or its predecessors, wholly owned or controlled
`
`subsidiaries, or affiliates sold pork in interstate commerce, directly or through its wholly owned
`
`or controlled affiliates, to purchasers in the United States, including in this District.
`
`h.
`
`Tyson
`
`42.
`
`Tyson Foods, Inc. is a publicly traded Delaware corporation headquartered in
`
`Springdale, Arkansas. During the Conspiracy Period, Tyson Foods, Inc. and/or its predecessors,
`
`wholly owned or controlled subsidiaries, or affiliates sold pork in interstate commerce, directly
`
`or through its wholly owned or controlled affiliates, to purchasers in the United States, including
`
`in this District.
`
`43.
`
`Tyson Prepared Foods, Inc. is a Delaware corporation headquartered in
`
`Springdale, Arkansas and is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Tyson Foods, Inc. During the
`
`Conspiracy Period, Tyson Prepared Foods, Inc. sold pork in interstate commerce, directly or
`
`through its wholly-owned or controlled affiliates, to purchasers in the United States, including in
`
`this District.
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case: 1:21-cv-03002 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/04/21 Page 16 of 59 PageID #:16
`
`44.
`
`Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc. is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Springdale,
`
`Arkansas and is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Tyson Foods, Inc. During the Conspiracy Period,
`
`Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc. sold pork in interstate commerce, directly or through its wholly-owned
`
`or controlled affiliates, to purchasers in the United States, including in this District.
`
`45.
`
`Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc., Tyson Prepared Foods, Inc. and Tyson Foods, Inc. are
`
`referred to here collectively as “Tyson.” Tyson reports a wide variety of pork data to Agri Stats,
`
`including, without limitation, highly-detailed, confidential information regarding its production
`
`and sales of pork.
`
`i.
`
`Co-Conspirators
`
`46.
`
`Co-Conspirator
`
`Indiana Packers Corporation
`
`is an
`
`Indiana corporation
`
`headquartered in Delphi, Indiana, and reports a wide variety of pork data to Agri Stats, including,
`
`without limitation, highly-detailed, confidential information regarding its production and sales of
`
`pork. During the Conspiracy Period, Indiana Packers Corporation and/or its predecessors,
`
`wholly owned or controlled subsidiaries, or affiliates sold pork in interstate commerce, directly
`
`or through its wholly owned or controlled affiliates, to purchasers in the United States. Indiana
`
`Packers Corporation’s parent companies are Itoham Foods, Inc., Mitsubishi Corporation, and
`
`Mitsubishi Corporation (Americas).
`
`47.
`
`Various other persons, firms, and corporations not named as defendants have
`
`performed acts and made statements in furtherance of the conspiracy. Defendants are jointly and
`
`severally liable for the acts of their co-conspirators whether or not named as defendants in this
`
`complaint. Throughout this Complaint, Indiana Packers and the other persons, firms, and
`
`corporations not named as defendants that performed acts and made statements in furtherance of
`
`the conspiracy are collectively referred to as “Co-Conspirators.”
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case: 1:21-cv-03002 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/04/21 Page 17 of 59 PageID #:17
`
`IV.
`
`FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
`
`48.
`
`Starting in at least 2009 and continuing to the present, Defendants and their co-
`
`conspirators conspired to fix, raise, maintain and stabilize pork prices. To effectuate and ensure
`
`the stability of their anticompetitive agreement, the Producer Defendants relied on a unique
`
`indu