throbber
CASE 0:18-cv-01776-JRT-HB Doc. 968 Filed 10/20/21 Page 1 of 24
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
`
`
`
`IN RE PORK ANTITRUST
`LITIGATION
`
`
`This Document Relates To:
`
`COMMERCIAL AND
`INSTITUTIONAL INDIRECT
`PURCHASER PLAINTIFF ACTION
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 18-cv-1776 (JRT/HB)
`
`
`
`Memorandum in Support of Motion
`for Final Approval of Class Action
`Settlement Between the
`Commercial and Institutional
`Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs and
`Defendant JBS
`
`

`

`CASE 0:18-cv-01776-JRT-HB Doc. 968 Filed 10/20/21 Page 2 of 24
`
`
`
`
`
`Table of Contents
`
`Introduction ......................................................................................................................................... 1
`
`Factual Background ............................................................................................................................. 2
`
`
`The Settlement Terms ............................................................................................... 3
`
`The Notice Plan .......................................................................................................... 4
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`III. Class Member Reaction ............................................................................................. 5
`
`
`Legal Standard ...................................................................................................................................... 6
`
`Argument .............................................................................................................................................. 7
`
`
`The Settlement is Fair, Reasonable, and Adequate ................................................ 7
`
`I.
`
`
`II.
`
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`A.
`
`
`The Likelihood of Success on the Merits Weighed Against the
`Relief Offered in the Settlement Supports Final Approval ...................... 7
`
`The Complexity, Expense, and Likely Duration of Continued
`Litigation Favor Final Approval .................................................................. 8
`
`The Class Member Reaction Favors Final Approval ................................ 9
`
`There Were No Objections to the Notice Content or Plan .................. 11
`
`Timing of CAFA Notices and Final Approval Orders ........................... 12
`
`The Settlement Class Satisfies the Requirements of Rule 23(a) ............ 12
`
`1.
`
`The Settlement Class is Sufficiently Numerous .......................... 12
`
`i
`
`The Circumstances of the Settlement, and the Judgment of
`Experienced Counsel Who Have Evaluated the Case Supports
`Approval .......................................................................................................... 9
`
`Notice of the Settlements was Proper Under Federal Rule of Civil
`Procedure 23 and Met Due Process Requirements ............................................. 10
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`III. Certification of the Settlement Class is Appropriate ........................................... 12
`
`
`

`

`CASE 0:18-cv-01776-JRT-HB Doc. 968 Filed 10/20/21 Page 3 of 24
`
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Common Questions of Law and Fact Exist ................................ 13
`
`4.
`
`The Representative Plaintiffs’ Claims are Typical of Those of
`the Settlement Class ........................................................................ 13
`
`CIIPP Class Representatives and Their Counsel Have Fairly
`and Adequately Represented the Interests of the Class
`Members ........................................................................................... 14
`
`The Settlement Class Satisfies the Requirements of Rule 23(b) ............ 15
`
`Common Legal and Factual Questions Predominate ................. 16
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`B.
`
`
`IV.
`
`Class Actions Settlement is Superior to Other Methods of
`Adjudication ..................................................................................... 16
`
`The Court Should Appoint Settlement Class Counsel and Class
`Representatives ......................................................................................................... 17
`
`
`Conclusion .......................................................................................................................................... 17
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`CASE 0:18-cv-01776-JRT-HB Doc. 968 Filed 10/20/21 Page 4 of 24
`
`Table of Authorities
`
`
`Cases
`
`Alpern v. UtiliCorp United, Inc., 84 F.3d 1525 (8th Cir. 1996) ........................................................ 14
`
`AmChem Prod., Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 117 S. Ct. 2231 (1997) ............................. 12, 15, 16
`
`Ark. Educ. Ass’n v. Bd. of Educ. of Portland, Ark. Sch. Dist., 446 F.2d 763 (8th Cir. 1971) ......... 12
`
`Blades v. Monsanto Co., 430 F.3d 562 (8th Cir. 2005) ...................................................................... 13
`
`Bryant v. Bonded Account Serv./Checking Recovery, 208 F.R.D. 251 (D. Minn. 2000) ..................... 15
`
`Califano v. Yamasaki, 442 U.S. 682 (1979) ....................................................................................... 16
`
`Custom Hair Design by Sandy v. Cent. Payment Co., LLC, 984 F.3d 595 (8th Cir. 2020) ............... 15
`
`DeBoer v. Mellon Mortg. Co., 64 F.3d 1171 (8th Cir. 1995) .................................................... 7, 9, 13
`
`Grunin v. Int’l House of Pancakes, 513 F.2d 114 (8th Cir. 1975) ................................................. 7, 11
`
`In re Hartford Sales Practices Litig., 192 F.R.D. 592 (D. Minn. 1999) ............................................. 13
`
`In re Potash Antitrust Litig., 159 F.R.D. 682 (D. Minn. 1995) ........................................................ 15
`
`In re Pressure Sensitive Lablestock Antitrust Litig., 584 F. Supp. 2d 697 (M.D. Pa. 2008) ................ 8
`
`In re UnitedHealth Grp., Inc. S’holder Derivative Litig.,
`
`631 F. Supp. 2d 1151 (D. Minn. 2009) .......................................................................... 9, 10
`
`In re Wireless Tel. Fed. Cost Recovery Fees Litig., 396 F.3d 922 (8th Cir. 2005) ................................. 7
`
`In re Zurn Pex Plumbing Prods. Liab. Litig.,
`
`2013 WL 716088 (D. Minn. Feb. 27, 2013) ..................................................... 6, 10, 11, 16
`
`Jones v. Flowers, 547 U.S. 220 (2006) ................................................................................................. 11
`
`Lockwood Motors, Inc. v. Gen. Motors Corp., 162 F.R.D. 569 (D. Minn. 1995) .............................. 13
`
`Martin v. Cargill, Inc., 295 F.R.D. 380 (D. Minn. 2013) ............................................................. 6, 10
`
`MSK Eyes, Ltd. v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 546 F.3d 533 (8th Cir. 2008) ...................................... 6
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`CASE 0:18-cv-01776-JRT-HB Doc. 968 Filed 10/20/21 Page 5 of 24
`
`Mullane v. Cent. Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306 (1950) ........................................... 10, 11
`
`Paxton v. Union Nat’l Bank, 688 F.2d 552 (8th Cir. 1982) ............................................................. 14
`
`Petrovic v. Amoco Oil Co., 200 F.3d 1140 (8th Cir. 1999) ............................................................ 8, 10
`
`Sandusky Wellness Ctr., LLC v. Medtox Sci, Inc., 821 F.3d 992 (8th Cir. 2016) ............................. 16
`
`Smith v. Conoco Phillips Pipe Line Co., 801 F.3d 921 (8th Cir. 2015) .............................................. 12
`
`Smith v. SEECO, Inc., 965 F.3d 1021 (8th Cir. 2017) .................................................................... 11
`
`Stoetzner v. U.S. Steel Corp., 897 F.2d 115 (3d Cir. 1990) ................................................................. 9
`
`TBK Partners, Ltd. v. W. Union Corp., 675 F.2d 456 (2d Cir. 1982) ................................................ 9
`
`Texas Indus., Inc. v. Radcliff Materials, Inc., 451 U.S. 630 (1981) ....................................................... 8
`
`UAW v. General Motors Corp., 497 F.3d 615 (6th Cir. 2007) ........................................................... 6
`
`Van Horn v. Trickey, 840 F.2d 604 (8th Cir. 1988) ........................................................................... 6
`
`Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Visa U.S.A., Inc., 396 F.3d 96 (2d Cir. 2005),
`cert. denied 544 U.S. 1044 (2005) ............................................................................................. 9
`
`
`Welsch v. Gardenbring, 667 F. Supp. 1284 (D. Minn. 1987) .............................................................. 8
`
`White v. Nat’l Football League, 822 F. Supp. 1389 (D. Minn. 1993) ................................................ 6
`
`
`Statutes
`
`Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 ............................................................................................. 7, 11
`
`Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a)............................................................................................. 12
`
`Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a)(1) ........................................................................................ 12
`
`Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a)(2) ........................................................................................ 13
`
`Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a)(3) ........................................................................................ 13
`
`Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a)(4) ........................................................................................ 14
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`CASE 0:18-cv-01776-JRT-HB Doc. 968 Filed 10/20/21 Page 6 of 24
`
`Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b) ............................................................................... 15, 16, 17
`
`Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) .......................................................................... 10, 15, 16
`
`Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c)(2)(B) ........................................................................... 10, 11
`
`Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e) .............................................................................................. 7
`
`Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e)(1) ........................................................................................ 10
`
`Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e)(2) .......................................................................................... 6
`
`Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g) ............................................................................................ 17
`
`
`
`Other Authorities
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1715(b) ........................................................................................................................... 12
`
` 4
`
` Newberg on Class Actions § 11.26 ................................................................................................ 6
`
` Newberg on Class Actions § 11.41 (4th ed. 2005) ....................................................................... 6
`
` Newberg on Class Actions § 18.28 (4th ed. 2002) ..................................................................... 15
`
`v
`
` 4
`
` 4
`
`
`
`

`

`CASE 0:18-cv-01776-JRT-HB Doc. 968 Filed 10/20/21 Page 7 of 24
`
`
`
`Introduction
`
`The Commercial and Institutional Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs (“CIIPPs”) seek the
`
`Court’s final approval of the settlement of their claims against the JBS defendants (JBS USA
`
`Food Company; JBS USA Food Company Holdings; and Swift Pork Company). Under this
`
`“ice-breaker” settlement, JBS will pay $12,750,000.00 ($12.75 million) to the CIIPP settlement
`
`class. The settlement also provides meaningful cooperation, which will assist the CIIPPs in
`
`their pursuit of the remaining Defendants. No class member objected or opted out.
`
`The settlement provides excellent benefits considering the conduct, damage, and
`
`litigation risks related to JBS. The cash component is a reasonable compromise of the liability
`
`claim in comparison to the volume of commerce believed to be affected by JBS’s conduct.
`
`The settlement also reflects the value of receiving money and cooperation now, which benefit
`
`the CIIPPs’ claims against any new or non-settling Defendants.
`
`Notice of the settlement, as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, was
`
`provided through the notice plan the Court previously approved. The response from the
`
`members of the settlement class was uniformly positive. No class member objected to the
`
`settlement, attorney fees, litigation expenses, or the request to set aside funds for future class
`
`representative service awards. This is significant given that the settlement class consists of
`
`sophisticated businesses with their own counsel who can analyze the merits of these
`
`settlements. The favorable reception of this settlement provides good evidence that final
`
`approval should be granted, and final judgment be entered.
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`CASE 0:18-cv-01776-JRT-HB Doc. 968 Filed 10/20/21 Page 8 of 24
`
`Factual Background
`
`This putative class action alleges that Defendants1 engaged in a price-fixing conspiracy
`
`to artificially constrict the supply of pork products in the domestic market of the United States.
`
`The CIIPPs allege that Defendants conspired to constrain the supply, and fix the price, of
`
`pork2 from at least 2009 through the commencement of the present action.3 (See CIIPP Fourth
`
`Consolidated and Amended Complaint (Dkt. 808)).4 The CIIPPs allege that Defendants—
`
`
`Defendants in this action include Agri Stats, Inc.; Clemens Food Group, LLC and The
`1
`Clemens Family Corporation; Hormel Foods Corporation and Hormel Foods, LLC; Indiana
`Packers Corporation; JBS USA Food Company; Seaboard Foods LLC and Seaboard
`Corporation; Smithfield Foods, Inc.; Triumph Foods, LLC; and Tyson Foods, Inc., Tyson
`Fresh Meats, Inc. and Tyson Prepared Foods, Inc.
`
` 2
`
`For this settlement, “Pork” means porcine or swine products processed, produced or
`
`sold by JBS, or by any of the Defendants or their co-conspirators, including but not limited
`to: primals (including but not limited to loins, shoulders, picnics, butts, ribs, bellies, hams, or
`legs), trim or sub-primal products (including but not limited to backloins, tenderloins,
`backribs, boneless loins, boneless sirloins, riblets, chef’s prime, prime ribs, brisket, skirt,
`cushion, ground meats, sirloin tip roast, or hocks), further processed and value added porcine
`products (including, but not limited to bacon, sausage, lunch meats, further processed ham,
`or jerky products), offal or variety products (including, but not limited to hearts, tongues,
`livers, head products, spleens, kidneys, feet, stomach, bladder, uterus, snoot, ears, tail, brisket
`bone, intestines, jowls neck bones or other bones, skin, lungs, glands, hair, or pet food
`ingredients), rendered product and byproducts (including, but not limited to, lard, grease, meat
`meal, bone meal, blood meal, or blood plasma), casings (including, but not limited to, mucosa),
`and carcasses. (Dkt. 757).
`
` 3
`
`The CIIPP representative plaintiffs are: Sandee’s Bakery; Francis T. Enterprises d/b/a
`
`Erbert & Gerbert’s; Joe Lopez, d/b/a Joe’s Steak and Leaf; Longhorn’s Steakhouse; The
`Grady Corporation; Mcmjoynt LLC d/b/a The Breakfast Joynt; Edley’s Restaurant Group,
`LLC; Basil Mt. Pleasant, LLC; Basil Charlotte, Inc.; Farah’s Courtyard Deli, Inc.; and Tri-Ten
`LLC.
`
` 4
`
`The Court granted Defendants’ initial motions to dismiss Plaintiffs’ complaints, with
`
`leave to amend, in August 2019. (Dkt. 360.) On October 16, 2020, the Court denied
`Defendants’ motions to dismiss the CIIPPs Third Consolidated Amended Complaint, except
`as to certain state-law claims. (Dkts. 519, 520).
`
`2
`
`

`

`CASE 0:18-cv-01776-JRT-HB Doc. 968 Filed 10/20/21 Page 9 of 24
`
`through their co-conspirator, Agri Stats—exchanged detailed, competitively sensitive, and
`
`closely guarded non-public information about price, capacity, sales volume, and demand. (Id.
`
`¶ 2). Agri Stats provided highly sensitive “benchmarking” reports to most pork integrators,
`
`thereby allowing competitors to compare their profits or performance against that of other
`
`companies. (Id. ¶ 3). The effect of this anti-competitive exchange of non-public information
`
`allowed pork integrators to control the supply and price of pork. (Id.)
`
`The cases in this coordinated litigation, unlike some civil-antitrust actions, were
`
`brought without the assistance of a leniency applicant under the Department of Justice’s
`
`Corporate Leniency Program and without a formal antitrust investigation by the Department
`
`of Justice. On October 15, 2018, the Court appointed the undersigned as Interim Co-Lead
`
`Class Counsel for the CIIPPs. (Dkt. 150). Since filing their first complaint, the CIIPPs have
`
`continued their investigation and development of their case. During ongoing discovery,
`
`Interim Co-Lead Class Counsel negotiated a proposed settlement with JBS. The Court
`
`preliminarily approved the settlement between CIIPPs and JBS on May 3, 2021. (Dkt. 767).
`
`I.
`
`The Settlement Terms
`
`This first CIIPP settlement came after substantial adversarial litigation with Defendants
`
`in this MDL and after years of investigation. CIIPPs’ counsel was well-informed and the
`
`Settlement Agreement with JBS arose from arm’s length and good-faith negotiations. (See
`
`Declaration of Shawn Raiter). The parties participated in fact-gathering sessions, informational
`
`meetings, and several mediation sessions with a nationally recognized mediator. (Id.)
`
`The CIIPPs negotiated a Settlement which provides a substantial cash benefit. Under
`
`the Settlement, JBS will pay $12,750,000 (twelve million seven hundred fifty thousand U.S.
`
`3
`
`

`

`CASE 0:18-cv-01776-JRT-HB Doc. 968 Filed 10/20/21 Page 10 of 24
`
`dollars) to the CIIPP Settlement Class.5 Of that amount, the Court approved up to $500,000
`
`to be used for reasonable costs of disseminating notice of the Settlement Agreement, including
`
`the cost of administration. (Dkt. 812). The Settlement may, upon the Court’s approval, also
`
`be of further benefit by being utilized to fund litigation expenses against the non-settling
`
`Defendants.
`
`On top of the $12,750,000 in cash payments, JBS is also required to provide the CIIPPs
`
`with various forms of cooperation. The terms of the cooperation were outlined in a
`
`confidential side letter agreement that remains available upon request by the Court for in camera
`
`review. (Settlement Agreement, Ex. A, ¶ 10 (Dkt. 757-1)).
`
`II.
`
`The Notice Plan
`
`The Court preliminarily approved the settlement on May 3, 2021. (Dkt. 767).
`
`Separately, the Court approved the CIIPPs proposed notice plan. (Dkt. 812). Pursuant to that
`
`Order, the CIIPPs effectuated the proposed notice plan through class action notice consultant
`
`Epiq Class Action & Claims Solutions, Inc. (“Epiq”) and its business unit Hilsoft Notifications
`
`(“Hilsoft”). Through Epiq, Hilsoft, and Cameron Azari—a nationally-recognized expert in
`
`
`5 The Settlement Class is defined as: “All entities who indirectly purchased Pork from
`Defendants or co-conspirators or their respective subsidiaries or affiliates in the United States
`during the Settlement Class Period for their own business use in commercial food preparation.
`
`Specifically excluded from the Settlement Class are Defendants; the officers, directors or
`employees of any Defendant; the parent companies of any Defendant; the subsidiaries of any
`Defendant and any entity in which Defendant has a controlling interest; purchasers of Pork
`that purchased Pork for resale in an unmodified and untransformed form; and any affiliate,
`legal representative, heir or assign of any Defendant. Also excluded from the Settlement Class
`are any federal, state or local government entities, any judicial officer presiding over this action
`and the members of his/her immediate family and judicial staff, any juror assigned to this
`action.” (Settlement Agreement, Dkt. 757-1).
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`CASE 0:18-cv-01776-JRT-HB Doc. 968 Filed 10/20/21 Page 11 of 24
`
`the field of legal notice—potential CIIPP class members were identified and mailed a long
`
`form notice that provided information about the settlement. (See Declaration of Cameron
`
`Azari). The notice consultant also sent long form notices to email addresses associated with
`
`potential class members. (Id.) A multi-faceted notice program intended to provide the best
`
`notice practicable under the circumstances was therefore carried out and included:
`
` Individual Email Notice to approximately 90,000 Class Members;
` Establishment of a Settlement Website and toll-free telephone number;
` Targeted Banner Notices on advertising networks Google Display Network and Verizon
`(Yahoo) Audience Network;
` Advertising on social media websites, including Facebook and LinkedIn;
` Sponsored search listings on the three most-visited search engines: Google, Yahoo!, and
`Bing; and
` An Information Release issued over PR newswire to approximately 5,000 general media
`(print and broadcast) outlets, including local and national newspapers, magazines,
`national wire services, television, and radio broadcast, as well as approximately 4,500
`websites, online databases, internet networks, and social media networks, and also
`distributed to more than 530 journalists that report specifically on restaurants and the
`food industry.
`
`(See id.) The notice plan “reached” approximately 70 percent of the potentially eligible class
`
`members. (Id.). Class members were notified of the Settlement Website, which provided
`
`information and further case-related documents such as the long-form notice, short-form
`
`notice, and the full text of the Settlement Agreement. (Id.). The Claims-Administrator also
`
`provided instructions on how to attend the Court’s fairness hearing, details on how to object
`
`to the Settlement or opt out of the Settlement Class, and other details regarding the Settlement
`
`and approval process. (Id.).
`
`III. Class Member Reaction
`
`The reaction to the Settlement Agreement was uniformly positive. No class member
`
`objected to any term of the Settlement or opted out of the Settlement class. (Id.).
`
`5
`
`

`

`CASE 0:18-cv-01776-JRT-HB Doc. 968 Filed 10/20/21 Page 12 of 24
`
`
`
`The district court must review class action settlements to ensure that they are “fair,
`
`Legal Standard
`
`reasonable, and adequate,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(2). “The policy in federal court favoring the
`
`voluntary resolution of litigation through settlement is particularly strong in the class action
`
`context.” White v. Nat’l Football League, 822 F. Supp. 1389, 1416 (D. Minn. 1993); see MSK Eyes,
`
`Ltd. v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 546 F.3d 533, 541 (8th Cir. 2008); accord UAW v. General Motors
`
`Corp., 497 F.3d 615, 632 (6th Cir. 2007) (federal policy favors settlement of class actions).
`
`Review of a proposed class-action settlement typically proceeds in two stages: preliminary
`
`approval and final approval. See Martin v. Cargill, Inc., 295 F.R.D. 380, 383 (D. Minn. 2013).
`
`Between preliminary and final approval, the class must be notified of the proposed settlement
`
`and be given an opportunity to object, opt out of the class, or be heard. 4 Newberg on Class
`
`Actions § 11.26.
`
`A district court “has broad discretion in evaluating a class action settlement.” Van Horn
`
`v. Trickey, 840 F.2d 604, 606–07 (8th Cir. 1988). In exercising this discretion, the court gives
`
`“great weight” to and may rely on the judgment of experienced counsel in its evaluation of a
`
`proposed settlement. In re Zurn Pex Plumbing Prods. Liab. Litig., 08-MDL-1958 (ADM/AJB),
`
`2013 WL 716088, at *6 (D. Minn. Feb. 27, 2013). Courts adhere to “an initial presumption of
`
`fairness when a proposed class settlement, which was negotiated at arm’s length by counsel
`
`for the class, is presented for court approval.” 4 Newberg on Class Actions § 11.41 (4th ed.
`
`2005) (collecting cases). “In examining a proposed compromise for approval or disapproval
`
`… the court does not try the case. The very purpose of compromise is to avoid the delay and
`
`6
`
`

`

`CASE 0:18-cv-01776-JRT-HB Doc. 968 Filed 10/20/21 Page 13 of 24
`
`expense of such a trial.” Grunin v. Int’l House of Pancakes, 513 F.2d 114, 124 (8th Cir. 1975)
`
`(quotation omitted).
`
`I.
`
`The Settlement is Fair, Reasonable, and Adequate.
`
`Argument
`
`The Settlement with JBS meets the criteria required for final approval under Rule 23
`
`of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. It provides meaningful benefits and was reached after
`
`negotiations between experienced counsel who were armed with sufficient background about
`
`the merits and defenses to the claims asserted. The settlements reflect a reasonable
`
`compromise considering the liability, damages, and procedural uncertainties facing both the
`
`CIIPPs and JBS.
`
`In making the determination under Rule 23(e) of whether the settlement is fair,
`
`reasonable, and adequate, the district court considers a number of factors, including: the merits
`
`of the plaintiff’s case, weighed against the terms of the settlement; the defendant’s financial
`
`condition; the complexity and expense of further litigation; and the amount of opposition to
`
`the settlement. In re Wireless Tel. Fed. Cost Recovery Fees Litig., 396 F.3d 922, 931 (8th Cir. 2005).
`
`The court may also consider procedural fairness to ensure the settlement is not the product of
`
`fraud or collusion. Id. And the court may consider whether a settlement resulted from arm’s
`
`length negotiations, and whether a skilled mediator was involved. DeBoer v. Mellon Mortg. Co.,
`
`64 F.3d 1171, 1178 (8th Cir. 1995).
`
`A.
`
`The Likelihood of Success on the Merits Weighed Against the Relief
`Offered in the Settlement Supports Final Approval.
`
`The strength of the case for plaintiffs on the merits, balanced against the amount
`
`
`
`offered in settlement, is an important consideration in determining whether a settlement is
`
`7
`
`

`

`CASE 0:18-cv-01776-JRT-HB Doc. 968 Filed 10/20/21 Page 14 of 24
`
`fair, reasonable, and adequate. Petrovic v. Amoco Oil Co., 200 F.3d 1140, 1150 (8th Cir. 1999).
`
`While the CIIPPs believe they have a strong case against JBS on the merits, success is by no
`
`means guaranteed. The Settlement provides, as discussed, substantial benefits in the form of
`
`cash and cooperation. The fact of certain substantial monetary compensation and cooperation
`
`is significant to this factor because, even if CIIPPs could potentially recover greater damages
`
`at trial, the non-settling defendants remain jointly and severally liable for any damages resulting
`
`from JBS’s Pork sales to CIIPPs during the class period. See Texas Indus., Inc. v. Radcliff Materials,
`
`Inc., 451 U.S. 630, 646 (1981); see also In re Pressure Sensitive Lablestock Antitrust Litig., 584 F. Supp.
`
`2d 697, 702 (M.D. Pa. 2008) (“[T]he benefit of obtaining the cooperation of the Settling
`
`Defendants tend to offset the fact that they would be able to withstand a larger judgment.”).
`
`Interim Co-Lead Counsel has investigated and analyzed, among other things, the
`
`strength of the liability claims against JBS, the volume of affected commerce, the value of the
`
`cooperation being provided, and the range of damage that could be proven at trial against JBS.
`
`Counsel believes this Settlement to be a positive outcome for the CIIPPs—it reflects both the
`
`strength of the CIIPPs case and the risk that JBS could prevail on some of its arguments. The
`
`Court may afford “great weight” to the opinions of experienced counsel. E.g., Welsch v.
`
`Gardenbring, 667 F. Supp. 1284, 1295 (D. Minn. 1987). This factor weighs in favor of final
`
`approval.
`
`B.
`
`The Complexity, Expense, and Likely Duration of Continued Litigation
`Favor Final Approval.
`
`
`
`This Court has had substantial opportunity to consider the claims and defenses in this
`
`litigation and knows that complex antitrust litigation of this scope has many inherent risks that
`
`settlements extinguish. This case was commenced more than three years ago, and it would
`
`8
`
`

`

`CASE 0:18-cv-01776-JRT-HB Doc. 968 Filed 10/20/21 Page 15 of 24
`
`likely continue for several more years, at significant additional expense, if litigated through an
`
`adversarial judgment any appeals. Even then, “the history of antitrust litigation is replete with
`
`cases in which antitrust plaintiffs succeeded at trial on liability, but recovered no damages, or
`
`only negligible damages, at trial, or on appeal.” Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Visa U.S.A., Inc., 396
`
`F.3d 96, 118 (2d Cir. 2005) (quotation omitted), cert. denied, 544 U.S. 1044 (2005). This factor
`
`also weighs heavily in favor of final approval.
`
`C.
`
`The Class Member Reaction Favors Final Approval.
`
`The absence of negative reaction to a settlement weighs in favor of approval. In re
`
`UnitedHealth Grp., Inc. S’holder Derivative Litig., 631 F. Supp. 2d 1151, 1158 (D. Minn. 2009);
`
`accord Stoetzner v. U.S. Steel Corp., 897 F.2d 115, 118–19 (3d Cir. 1990) (holding that objections
`
`by about 10% of class “strongly favors settlement”); see also TBK Partners, Ltd. v. W. Union Corp.,
`
`675 F.2d 456, 458, 462 (2d Cir. 1982) (approving settlement despite objections of large number
`
`of class). Here, notice of the Settlement was sent and published to the potential class, and no
`
`class member objected to any term of the Settlement or opted-out of the class. The lack of
`
`objection speaks loudly about the benefits of the Settlement. This factor counsels in support
`
`of final approval.
`
`D.
`
`The Circumstances of the Settlement, and the Judgment of Experienced
`Counsel Who Have Evaluated the Case Supports Approval.
`
`There are several other miscellaneous factors the district court considers in determining
`
`
`
`whether a settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate. All of them support final approval. The
`
`experience and opinion of counsel on both sides may be considered in determining whether a
`
`settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate. DeBoer, 64 F.3d at 1178. Also, where sufficient
`
`discovery has been conducted and the parties have bargained at arms-length, there is a
`
`9
`
`

`

`CASE 0:18-cv-01776-JRT-HB Doc. 968 Filed 10/20/21 Page 16 of 24
`
`presumption in favor of the settlement. In re UnitedHealth Grp. Inc. S’holder Derivative Litig., 631
`
`F. Supp. 2d at 1158; see also In re Zurn Pex Plumbing Prods. Liab. Litig., No. 08-MDL-1959, 2013
`
`WL 716088, at *6 (D. Minn. Feb. 27, 2013) (“Settlement agreements are presumptively valid,
`
`particularly where a settlement has been negotiated at arm’s-length, discovery is sufficient,
`
`[and] the settlement proponents are experienced in similar matters….”).
`
`This settlement is the result of extensive negotiations, with the assistance of an
`
`experienced mediator, between counsel actively involved and informed with the case. The
`
`judgment of counsel under these circumstances should be considered. See Petrovic, 200 F.3d at
`
`1149. Finally, the “absence of any glaring substantive or procedural deficiencies,” in
`
`conjunction with the other factors considered, supports final approval. Martin, 295 F.R.D. at
`
`383.
`
`II. Notice of the Settlements was Proper Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23
`and Met Due Process Requirements.
`
`
`
`The Court is required to “direct notice in a reasonable manner to all class members
`
`who would be bound by the [proposed settlement].” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(1). For Rule 23(b)(3)
`
`actions, “the court must direct to class members the best notice that is practicable under the
`
`circumstances, including individual notice to all members who can be identified through
`
`reasonable effort.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(2)(B).
`
`The notice of a class action settlement need only satisfy the broad “reasonableness”
`
`standards imposed by due process. Petrovic, 200 F.3d at 1153. A notice is adequate if
`
`“reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the
`
`pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections.” Id.
`
`(quoting Mullane v. Cent. Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314 (1950)). To satisfy due
`
`10
`
`

`

`CASE 0:18-cv-01776-JRT-HB Doc. 968 Filed 10/20/21 Page 17 of 24
`
`process, the notice must reflect a desire to inform. Mullane, 339 U.S. at 315. The mechanics of
`
`the notice process “are left to the discretion of the court subject only to the broad
`
`‘reasonableness’ standard imposed by due-process.” Grunin, 513 F.2d at 121. The notice plan
`
`should take reasonable steps to update addresses before mailing and provide for re-mailing of
`
`notices to better addresses when returned as undeliverable. Jones v. Flowers, 547 U.S. 220, 226–
`
`27 (2006).
`
`The “best notice practicable” does not mean actual notice, nor does it require ind

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket