NATIONAL ATM COUNCIL, INC. v. VISA INC., et al.

United States District Court for the District of Columbia

Case No. 1:11-cv-01803

BACKGROUND:

Plaintiffs allege that Visa and MasterCard have imposed contractual provisions – the “ATM Access Fee Rules” or “the Rules” – that prevent ATM operators from charging a discounted access fee if a customer’s transaction can be processed over an alternative network that is less expensive than Visa or MasterCard networks and they allege that those rules unreasonably restrain trade and therefore violate Section 1 of the Sherman Act. Read More

DEFENDANTS:

Visa Inc.; MasterCard Incorporated

CLASS DEFINITION:

All ATM Operators that originated an Authorized Surcharged ATM Cash Disbursement at a Qualified ATM at any time between October 1, 2007, and the present. 
“ATM Operator” is any person or entity that owned, operated, or leased a Qualified ATM that was authorized by a MasterCard Member or Visa Member, or by the agent of such Member, to originate an ATM Cash Disbursement through the connection of the Qualifying ATM to the Visa or MasterCard ATM Networks.  ATM Operator includes ATM Independent Sales Organizations (“ISOs”) sponsored by a MasterCard Member of Visa Member and authorized to connect a Qualified ATM to the MasterCard of Visa Networks, together with the affiliates of ATM ISOs authorized by the ATM ISA to connect a Qualified ATM to the MasterCard or Visa ATM Networks.  Persons or entities that make space available to ISOs or affiliates of ISOs to operate a Qualified ATM on property they own or control, armored car firms that provide cash replenishment of Qualified ATMs, and Encryption and Support Organizations that manage encryption keys or service Qualified ATMs are not ATM Operators.Read More

THERE HAVE BEEN NO SETTLEMENTS MADE TO DATE

Continue To Signup

  NATIONAL ATM COUNCIL, INC. v. VISA INC., et al.

United States District Court for the District of Columbia

Case No. 1:11-cv-01803

BACKGROUND:

Plaintiffs allege that Visa and MasterCard have imposed contractual provisions – the “ATM Access Fee Rules” or “the Rules” – that prevent ATM operators from charging a discounted access fee if a customer’s transaction can be processed over an alternative network that is less expensive than Visa or MasterCard networks and they allege that those rules unreasonably restrain trade and therefore violate Section 1 of the Sherman Act. Read More

DEFENDANTS:

Visa Inc.; MasterCard Incorporated

CLASS DEFINITION:

All ATM Operators that originated an Authorized Surcharged ATM Cash Disbursement at a Qualified ATM at any time between October 1, 2007, and the present. 
“ATM Operator” is any person or entity that owned, operated, or leased a Qualified ATM that was authorized by a MasterCard Member or Visa Member, or by the agent of such Member, to originate an ATM Cash Disbursement through the connection of the Qualifying ATM to the Visa or MasterCard ATM Networks.  ATM Operator includes ATM Independent Sales Organizations (“ISOs”) sponsored by a MasterCard Member of Visa Member and authorized to connect a Qualified ATM to the MasterCard of Visa Networks, together with the affiliates of ATM ISOs authorized by the ATM ISA to connect a Qualified ATM to the MasterCard or Visa ATM Networks.  Persons or entities that make space available to ISOs or affiliates of ISOs to operate a Qualified ATM on property they own or control, armored car firms that provide cash replenishment of Qualified ATMs, and Encryption and Support Organizations that manage encryption keys or service Qualified ATMs are not ATM Operators.Read More

THERE HAVE BEEN NO SETTLEMENTS MADE TO DATE

Continue To Signup

 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

 In Re Cattle and Beef Antitrust Litigation

United States District Court District of Minnesota

Case No. 0:20-cv-01319

BACKGROUND:

The plaintiffs allege that from at least as early as 2015 through the present, the Defendants entered into a combination, contract or conspiracy to fix, maintain and raise the price of Beef to supracompetitive levels. They allegedly engaged in a scheme using mechanisms that included suppressing throughput of fed cattle thereby creating artificial Beef supply restraints. The alleged conspiracy to suppress the throughput of fed cattle led to Beef prices paid by plaintiffs and direct purchaser class members being higher than they otherwise would have been in a competitive market.

DEFENDANTS:

• Cargill, Inc.
• Cargill Meat Solutions Corporation
• JBS S.A.
• JBS USA Food Company Holdings
• Swift Beef Company
• JBS Packerland, Inc.
• Tyson Foods, Inc.
• Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc.
• National Beef Packing Company
• Marfrig Global Foods S.A.

DPP PROPOSED CLASS::

All persons and entities who, from January 1, 2015, through February 10, 2022, purchased for use or delivery in the United States, directly from any of the Defendants or their respective subsidiaries and affiliates, boxed or case-ready beef processed from Fed Cattle, excluding ground beef made from culled cows. Excluded from this Class are any federal, state or local governmental entities, any judicial officer presiding over this action and the members of his/her immediate family and judicial staff, and any juror assigned to this action.

SETTLEMENTS:

$52,500,000.00 (JBS)

CLAIM FILING DEADLINE

N/A

Continue To Signup

 In Re: Pork Antitrust Litigation

United States District Court District of Minnesota

Case No. 0:18-cv-01776

BACKGROUND:

The plaintiffs allege that the Defendants entered into a conspiracy from at least 2009 to the present to fix, raise, maintain, and stabilize the price of pork, by coordinating their output and limiting production with the intent and expected result of increasing pork prices in the United States. Plaintiffs further allege that in furtherance of the conspiracy, Defendants exchanged detailed, competitively sensitive, and closely guarded non-public information about prices, capacity, sales volume and demand through their co-conspirator, Defendant Agri-Stats.

DEFENDANTS:

Agri-Stats, Inc. Clemens Food Group, LLC Hormel Foods Corporation Indiana Packers Corporation JBS USA Food Company (Settled for $24.5mm with DPP) Seaboard Foods LLC Smithfield Foods, Inc. Triumph Foods, LLC Tyson Foods, Inc., Tyson Prepared Foods, Inc., Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc.

DPP SETTLEMENT CLASS::

All persons who purchased pork directly from any of the Defendants or any co-conspirator, or their respective subsidiaries or affiliates for use or delivery in the United States from at least as early as January 1, 2009 until the January 12, 2021.

COMMERCIAL AND INSTITUTIONAL IPP PROPOSED CLASS:

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 (January 1, 2009 through date of preliminary approval of settlement) for their own business use in commercial food preparation. (this may be limited to Indirect Purchaser States AR, AZ, CA, DC, FL, IA, KA, MA, ME, MI, MN, MS, NE, NV, NH, NM, NY, NC, ND, OR, RI, SC, SD, TN, UT, VT, WV, WI )

SETTLEMENTS:

$107,500,000.00 – DPP (JBS and Smithfield) $12,750,000.00 – Commercial and Institutional IPP

CLAIM FILING DEADLINE

N/A

Continue To Signup

 In Re: Farm-Raised Salmon and Salmon Products Antitrust Litigation

United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida

Case No. 1:19-cv-21551

BACKGROUND:

The plaintiffs allege that the defendants, leading producers of Farmed Atlantic Salmon that is sold in the United States, entered into an agreement, combination, or conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain, or stabilize prices of Farmed Atlantic Salmon sold in the United States and elsewhere at supra-competitive levels. As a result of Defendants’ alleged unlawful conduct, plaintiff and the proposed class paid artificially inflated prices for Farmed Atlantic Salmon and as a result suffered antitrust injury to their business or property.

DEFENDANTS:

Mowi ASA, fka Marine Harvest ASA, Marine Harvest USA, LLC, Marine Harvest Canada, Inc., Ducktrap River of Maine LLC, Grieg Seafood ASA, Grieg Seafood Rogaland AS, Greig Seafood Finnmark AS, Grieg Seafood BC Ltd., Leroy Seafood Group ASA, Leroy Seafood USA, Inc., SalMar ASA, Scottish Sea Farms Ltd., Bremnes Seashort AS, Ocean Quality AS, Ocean Quality North America Inc., Ocean Quality Premium Brands, Inc.

Proposed DPP Class::

All individuals and entities who purchased Farmed Atlantic Salmon in the United States directly from any of the Defendants or their Co-Conspirators, or their respective controlled subsidiaries, affiliates, or joint-venturers between July 1, 2015 and the present. Defendants and all parent companies, subsidiaries, affiliates, officers, directors, employees, assigns, successors, agents, or co-conspirators thereof are excluded from the Class.

SETTLEMENTS:

No settlements have been reached at this time

Filing Deadline:

N/A

Continue To Signup

 Turkey Antitrust Litigation

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

Case No. 1:19-cv-08318 (DPP)

Case No. 1:20-cv-02295 (IPP)

BACKGROUND:

The plaintiffs allege that the Defendants violated antitrust laws by trading confidential price data, which allegedly allowed the Defendants to curb supply, and thereby raising turkey prices to artificially high levels.

DEFENDANTS:

Agri Stats, Inc., Butterball, LLC, Cargill, Inc., Cooper Farms, Inc., Farbest Foods, Inc., Foster Farms LLC, Kraft Heinz Foods Company, Hormel Foods Corporation, House of Raeford Farms, Inc., Perdue Farms, Inc., Tyson Foods, Inc., The Hillshire Brands Company.

CO-CONSPIRATORS:

Circle S-Ranch, Inc., Prestage Farms, West Liberty Foods LLC.

DIRECT PURCHASER CLASS: (Proposed)

All persons and entities who directly purchased turkey from Defendants or co-conspirators for personal use in the United States from at least January 1, 2010 and continuing at least until January 1, 2017. Excluded from this Class are the Defendants and co-conspirators; the officers, directors or employees of any Defendant or co-conspirator; any federal, state or local governmental entities.

COMMERCIAL And INSTITUTIONAL PURCHASER CLASS: (Proposed)

All commercial and institutional purchasers in the United States and its territories that purchased turkey, once or more, other than directly from Defendants, entities owned or controlled by Defendants, or other producers of turkey, from January 1, 2010 to January 1, 2017.

SETTLEMENTS:

DPP - $4.62 million (Tyson), C&IPP - $1.75mm.

CLAIM FILING DEADLINE

N/A

Continue To Signup