In re Pork Antitrust Litigation
- John Tunheim
- 0:18-cv-01776
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 6
In re Pork Antitrust Litigation: Judge Tunheim preliminarily approved Tyson’s class settlement and authorized notice to commercial and institutional indirect purchasers.
The order affects the commercial and institutional indirect purchaser classes, their representative plaintiffs and counsel, Tyson Foods, Inc., Tyson Prepared Foods, Inc., Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc., and class members who may receive notice and may object to or appear at the final fairness hearing.
What happened
In re Pork Antitrust Litigation involves commercial and institutional indirect purchaser plaintiffs’ proposed class-action settlement with Tyson Foods, Inc., Tyson Prepared Foods, Inc., and Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc.
The court preliminarily approved the settlement, including its release, preliminarily certified the settlement classes, authorized notice, and set deadlines for objections and requests to appear at the final fairness hearing. The approval is subject to that later hearing and does not establish Tyson’s liability or the truth of the plaintiffs’ claims.
Judge John R. Tunheim also approved a settlement fund, authorized settlement administration expenses, and stayed the litigation against the released Tyson parties except as needed to carry out the settlement.
The detailed version
- In re Pork Antitrust Litigation · No. 0:18-cv-01776
- John Tunheim
- Apr. 24, 2026
Background
Commercial and Institutional Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs (CIIPPs) moved for preliminary approval of a class-action settlement with Tyson Foods, Inc., Tyson Prepared Foods, Inc., and Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc., collectively referred to as Tyson. CIIPPs also asked the court to approve the proposed notice process and allow notice to be distributed.
The court had previously certified CIIPP classes. The settlement agreement used substantially the same class definitions, but added Illinois as a state whose law allows certain indirect purchasers to pursue claims despite the general rule associated with Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois. The court found a valid basis for that addition and preliminarily certified the classes for purposes of the settlement.
Ruling
The court granted CIIPPs’ motion for preliminary approval and leave to disseminate notice. It found that the settlement terms, including the release, were preliminarily fair, reasonable, and adequate to the certified classes, subject to further consideration at a final fairness hearing. The court also found that the settlement was negotiated by experienced counsel at arm’s length, presented no obvious reason to doubt its fairness, and fell within the range of settlements that could ultimately be approved.
The order approved the proposed notice forms and method of distribution as complying with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and due-process requirements. Notice was to begin within 21 days of the order. Class members would have 60 days after notice began to object or request to appear at the final fairness hearing. Fourteen days before that hearing, class counsel was required to file the motion for final approval and supporting materials.
The court authorized Epiq Class Action & Claims Solutions, Inc., and Epiq Legal Noticing, also known as Hilsoft Notifications, to administer notice. It approved creation of the settlement fund as a qualified settlement fund under Internal Revenue Code § 468B and allowed authorized settlement-related expenses to be paid from that fund. The litigation against the Tyson Released Parties was stayed except as necessary to implement the settlement.
The order states that if final approval is not granted, or if the settlement is canceled or terminated under its terms, the settlement and related proceedings will be vacated and treated as null and void, subject to the agreement’s provisions. The order also states that neither the settlement nor the order is an admission or evidence of Tyson’s liability, wrongdoing, or the truth of CIIPPs’ claims, or of the truth of Tyson’s defenses.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.