IN RE PORK ANTITRUST LITIGATION

Background

Consumer Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs sought final approval of a class-action settlement with JBS USA Food Company, JBS USA Food Company Holdings, and Swift Pork Company, collectively called the JBS Defendants. They also sought attorney fees and reimbursement of litigation expenses. The court reviewed the parties’ submissions, objections by putative class member Shiyang Huang, and arguments presented at a hearing.

The settlement provides $20 million in monetary compensation and cooperation from JBS in the continuing litigation against non-settling defendants. The settlement fund will pay valid class claims, notice and administration costs, service awards to named plaintiffs, and attorney fees and expenses. Eligible class members will receive payments based on their pro rata share of qualifying pork purchases. The court stated that the settlement and the order do not admit or establish any legal violation, liability, wrongdoing, or the truth of the Consumer Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs’ allegations.

Settlement Class and Notice

The court certified a settlement class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3). The class includes persons and entities that indirectly purchased pork from a defendant or alleged co-conspirator, or their subsidiaries or affiliates, for personal use in the United States from at least January 1, 2009, through the date of the order preliminarily approving the settlement. The order excludes defendants and specified related persons and entities, governmental entities, the presiding judicial officer and related court personnel, and jurors assigned to the action.

The court found that the class met Rule 23(a)’s requirements of numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequate representation. It also found that common questions predominated over individual questions and that a class action was the superior method of resolving the claims. The court emphasized that its certification ruling was limited to this settlement and did not decide whether certification would be proper for claims against other defendants or for litigation purposes.

The court found that the notice plan was the best practicable notice under the circumstances. Direct email notice reached more than 100,000 potential class members, while publication notice in English and Spanish reached millions. The notice program was estimated to have reached 81.1 percent of potential class members. The court found the allocation plan fair, reasonable, and adequate.

Attorney Fees and Expenses

The court approved a fee award using the percentage-of-the-fund method. It granted Consumer Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs’ counsel 33 percent of the settlement fund, totaling $6,600,000. The court found the award reasonable based on the benefit to the class, the difficulty and risks of the litigation, counsel’s time and work, counsel’s experience, class members’ reactions, and awards in similar cases. A lodestar cross-check produced a multiplier of 1.45, which the court found reasonable.

The court also granted reimbursement of $322,972.19 in expenses and costs, including expert fees, document-maintenance costs, travel expenses, and process fees. It found those expenses reasonable, necessary, and of the type normally awarded in class-action litigation.

Disposition

The court GRANTED the Consumer Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs’ Motion for Final Approval. It GRANTED their request for attorney fees in the amount of 33 percent of the common fund, or $6,600,000, and GRANTED their request for reimbursement of expenses and costs in the amount of $322,972.19. The court dismissed the action concerning the Consumer Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs’ claims with prejudice as to the JBS Released Parties. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b), it directed that the dismissal judgment as to the JBS Defendants be final and appealable and entered immediately. The court retained continuing and exclusive jurisdiction over the settlement agreement.