The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
IN RE: PORK ANTITRUST LITIGATION Civil No. 18-1776 (JRT/JFD)
This Document Relates To: ORDER GRANTING PRELIMINARY
APPROVAL OF THE CLASS ACTION
COMMERCIAL AND INSTITUTIONAL SETTLEMENT BETWEEN CONSUMER AND
INDIRECT PURCHASER PLAINTIFF INSTITUTIONAL INDIRECT PURCHASER
ACTIONS PLAINTIFFS AND SEABOARD FOODS LLC
The Commercial and Institutional Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs (“CIIPPs”)1 seek the
Court’s preliminary approval of the settlement of their claims against Seaboard Foods LLC
(“Seaboard Foods”). (Mot. for Approval of Settlement, July 17, 2024, Docket No. 2425.)
Upon consideration of the filings, record, and applicable legal authority and having
carefully reviewed the Motion and proposed settlement, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The CIIPPs’ Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement with
Seaboard Foods [Docket No. 2425] is GRANTED.
2. Unless otherwise set forth herein, defined terms in this Order shall have the
same meaning ascribed to them in the settlement agreement between CIIPPs and Seaboard
Foods (“Settlement Agreement”).
3. The Court has jurisdiction over this action and each of the parties to the
1 The current CIIPP named class 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.
Settlement Agreement.
4. On March 29, 2023, the Court granted class certification, certified CIIPP
classes, and appointed Larson · King, LLP and Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca as Co-Lead Class
Counsel. (Mem. Op. & Order (“Cert. Order”), Mar. 29, 2023, Docket No. 1887.)
5. The terms of the Settlement Agreement are hereby preliminarily approved,
including the release contained therein, as being fair, reasonable, and adequate to the certified
classes as defined in the Settlement Agreement (the “Certified Classes”), subject to further
consideration at the Court’s Fairness Hearing. The Court finds that the Settlement Agreement
was negotiated and entered into at arm’s length by experienced counsel, raises no obvious
reasons to doubt its fairness, and is sufficiently within the range of reasonableness that notice
of the Settlement Agreement should be given, pursuant to a plan to be submitted by Co-Lead
Class Counsel and approved by the Court at a later date as provided in this Order.
6. The definitions of the Certified Classes in the Settlement Agreement are the
same as those certified in the Court’s March 29, 2023 Order, except for the parties’ agreed
revision of the “Damages Class” to add Illinois as a Repealer Jurisdiction (i.e., a state that has
“repealed” the Supreme Court’s holding in Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois, 431 U.S. 720 (1977),
and provides standing to indirect purchasers). (See Cert. Order at 5–6; Decl. Shawn M.
Raiter ¶ 9, Ex. A ¶ 5, July 17, 2024, Docket No. 2427.) Because the Court certified almost
identical classes before settlement, it can incorporate its findings from the March 29, 2023
Order and need only address the addition of Illinois as a Repealer Jurisdiction. Fed. R. Civ.
P. 23(e)(1) Advisory Committee Note to 2018 amendment (in cases where a class has been
certified before settlement, the only class certification issues at the settlement stage
concern “whether the proposed settlement calls for any change in the class certified, or of
the claims, defenses, or issues regarding which certification was granted”).
7. The Court finds that there is a valid basis for adding Illinois as a Repealer
Jurisdiction, see 740 Ill. Comp. Stat. § 10/7, and notes that the Court has previously
approved an indirect purchaser class that included Illinois as a Repealer Jurisdiction. (See Cert.
Order at 8 n.10.) Accordingly, as part of this preliminary approval order, the Court preliminarily
certifies, for purposes of this settlement, the “Certified Classes” as defined in the Settlement
Agreement.
8. Within 15 days of the date of this Order, Co-Lead Class Counsel for the CIIPPs will
move the Court (“Notice Motion”) to approve a program to notify members of the Certified
Classes of this settlement with Seaboard Foods. Co-Lead Class Counsel shall provide notice of
the Settlement Agreement and the Fairness Hearing to potential class members affected
by and/or entitled to participate in the settlement in compliance with the notice
requirements of Rule 23 and due process of law. Such means of providing notice will be
addressed in a subsequent Order following submission of the Notice Motion by CIIPPs.
9. The Notice Motion shall include a proposed form of, method for, and date of
dissemination of notice.
10. After notice has been disseminated, potential members of the Certified Classes
who: (1) wish to object to the Settlement Agreement will be required to submit an appropriate
and timely written statement of the grounds for the objection, or (2) wish to appear in person
to be heard or object to the Settlement Agreement will be required to submit an appropriate
and timely request to appear. The directions for exercising these options will be set forth in
the notice documents and the Court’s Order regarding the Notice Motion.
11. If the Settlement Agreement is not granted Final Approval following the
Fairness Hearing or is cancelled or terminated pursuant to Paragraph 20 of the Settlement
Agreement, then the Settlement Agreement and all proceedings had in connection therewith
shall be vacated, and shall be null and void, except insofar as expressly provided otherwise in
the Settlement Agreement, and without prejudice to the status quo and rights of CIIPPs,
Seaboard Foods, and the members of the Certified Classes. The parties shall also comply with
any terms or provisions of the Settlement Agreement applicable to the settlement not
becoming final.
12. Neither this Order nor the Settlement Agreement shall be deemed or construed
to be an admission or evidence of a violation of any statute, law, rule, or regulation or of any
liability or wrongdoing by Seaboard Foods or of the truth of any of CIIPPs’ claims or
allegations, nor shall it be deemed or construed to be admission or evidence of Seaboard
Foods’ defenses.
13. The Court approves the establishment of the Settlement Fund described at
Paragraph 12 of the Settlement Agreement as a qualified settlement fund (“QSF”) pursuant to
Internal Revenue Code Section 468B and the Treasury Regulations promulgated thereunder
and retains continuing jurisdiction as to any issue that may arise in connection with the
formation and/or administration of the QSF. Co-Lead Class Counsel are, in accordance with
the Settlement Agreement and subject to any necessary Court approval, authorized to
expend funds from the QSF for the payment of the costs of notice, payment of taxes, and
settlement administration costs.
14. ‘The litigation against the Released Parties (as defined in the Settlement
Agreement with Seaboard Foods) is stayed except to the extent necessary to effectuate the
Settlement Agreement.
DATED: July 25, 2024 (usdeeinn
at Minneapolis, Minnesota. JOHN R. TUNHEIM
United States District Judge
-5-