Joe-Tantillo-

Joe Tantillo

Senior Account Executive

PHONE: 1-914-306-7331

FAX: 914-630-1250

EMAIL: [email protected]

OVERVIEW & EXPERIENCE

Prior to joining KRS, Mr. Tantillo was a serial entrepreneur. He has owned and operated several restaurants, beginning in 1993 when he opened A NO I Pizza, which he ran successfully until 2010 when he sold it. At that point Mr. Tantillo focused on purchasing underperforming establishments, turning them around so that they were profitable, and then selling them. It was during this time that he met David Fair and became very interested in the class action settlement field. Mr. Tantillo joined KRS full time at the beginning of 2016. His many contacts made during the years of running businesses, as well as the understanding for what it takes to operate a successful operation, has led to him being very successful in his transition into the world of class action settlements. He has a BA degree in Finance from Iona College, and spent two summers interning at the NY Stock Exchange, before deciding to go into business for himself.

EXPERTISE

Isocyanates Antitrust Litigation

Liquid Alum (Aluminum Sulfate) Antitrust Litigation

Syngenta Corn Seed Litigation

Dental Supplies Antitrust Litigation

Syringes and Catheters Antitrust Litigation

Navistar Liability Litigation

Intel Corp. Liability Litigation

In Re: Packaged Seafood Products Antitrust Litigation

United States District Court Southern District of California

Case No. 3:15-md-02670

BACKGROUND:

The plaintiffs allege that the three largest domestic producers of packaged seafood products (“PSPs”) conspired to fix, raise, maintain, and/or stabilize prices for PSPs within the United States, its territories and the District of Columbia in violations of Sections 1 and 3 of the Sherman Antitrust Act. PSPs refers to shelf-stable seafood products that are sold in cans, pouches or ready-to-eat serving packages. The principal type of PSP is canned tuna. The conspiracy was allegedly effectuated by various means, including, but not limited to: (a) agreeing to decrease the sizes of cans in which canned tuna is sold; (b) agreeing to issue collusive list price increases on canned tuna; (c) agreeing to limit promotional activity for PSPs; (d) agreeing not to compete by refraining from selling branded canned tuna with labels indicating it is “FAD Free” (seafood caught without the aid of fish aggregating devices “FADS”). As a result, Defendants’ PSP prices and profits have increased. Read More

DEFENDANTS:

Bumble Bee Foods, LLC, Tri-Union Seafoods LLC, Thai Union Group, StarKist Company, Dongwon Industries Co.,Ltd.

DIRECT PURCHASER PLAINTIFFS:

All persons and entities that directly purchased Packaged Tuna Products (excluding tuna salad kits and cups and salvage purchases) within the United States, its territories and the District of Columbia from any Defendant at any time between June 1, 2011 and July 31, 2015.
Excluded from the class are governmental entities, Defendants, any parent, subsidiary or affiliate thereof, and Defendants’ officers, directors, employees, and immediate families.Read More

INDIRECT PURCHASER COMMERCIAL FOOD PREPARER PLAINTIFS:

All persons and entities in 27 named states and D.C., that indirectly purchased packaged tuna products produced in packages of 40 ounces or more that were manufactured by any Defendant (or any current or former subsidiary or any affiliate thereof) and that were purchased directly from DOT Foods, Sysco, US Foods, Sam’s Club, Wal-Mart, or Costco from June 2011 through December 2016.
Arizona, Arkansas, California, Florida, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.Read More

SETTLEMENTS:

Commercial Food Preparer Plaintiffs - $6,500,000.00
DPP – 3.2% of Tri Union and Thai Union sales of Packaged Tuna Products during class period (estimated to be approximately $13mm)

CLAIM FILING DEADLINE

N/A

Continue To Signup

Broiler Chicken Antitrust Litigation

United States District Court For The Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division

Case No. 1:16-cv-08637

BACKGROUND:

The plaintiffs allege that the Defendants conspired and combined to fix, raise, maintain and stabilize the price of Broilers. The principal (but not exclusive) method by which Defendants allegedly implemented and executed their conspiracy was by coordinating their output and limiting production with the intent and expected result of increasing prices of Broilers in the United States. Broilers are chickens raised for meat consumption to be slaughtered before the age of 13 weeks, and which may be sold in a variety of forms, including fresh or frozen, raw or cooked, whole or in parts, or as a meat ingredient in a value-added product, but excluding chicken that is grown, processed, and sold according to halal, kosher, free-range or organic standards.

DEFENDANTS:

Amick Farms, LLC; Koch Foods Defendants (Koch Foods, Inc., JCG Foods of Alabama, LLC, JCG Foods of Georgia, LLC, Koch Meat Co., Inc.); Tyson Defendants (Tyson Foods, Inc., Tyson Chicken, Inc., Tyson Breeders, Inc., Tyson Poultry, Inc.); Pilgrim’s Pride Corporation; Perdue Defendants (Perdue Farms, Inc., Perdue Foods LLC); Sanderson Farm, Inc.; Wayne Farms, LLC; Mountaire Farms Defendants (Mountaire Farms, Inc., Mountaire Farms, LLC, Mountaire Farms of Delaware, Inc.); Peco Foods, Inc.; Foster Farms, LLC; House of Raeford Farms; Simmons Foods, Inc.; Fieldale Farms Corporation; George’s Inc.; O.K. Foods Defendants (O.K. Foods, Inc., O.K. Farms, Inc., O.K. Industries, Inc.) Co-Conspirators: Agri Stats, Inc., Claxton Poultry Farms, Inc., Harrison Poultry, Inc., Mar-Jac Poultry, Inc.

DIRECT PURCHASER CLASS: (Proposed):

All persons who purchased Broilers directly from any of the Defendants or any co-conspirator identified in this action, or their respective subsidiaries or affiliates for use of delivery in the United States from at least as early as January 1, 2008 until December 20, 2019.

COMMERCIAL & INSTITUTIONAL INDIRECT PURCHASER CLASS: (Proposed):

All entities who indirectly purchased Broilers from Defendants or co-conspirators from as early as January 1, 2008 until July 31, 2019 for their own use in commercial food preparation, including institutional purchasers such as hospitals, nursing homes, and schools. The indirect states are as follows: Arizona, California, Connecticut, District of Columbia, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia, Wisconsin.

SETTLEMENTS:

$180,876,600.00 (Direct Purchaser Class) $103,890.000.00 (Commercial and Institutional Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs CIIPPs)

CLAIM FILING DEADLINE

May 17, 2021 (Direct Purchasers Round 1, more to follow) March 2, 2022 (Commercial and Institutional Indirect Purchasers)

Continue To Signup