LGN represents end payor plaintiffs who allege that drug companies entered into an anticompetitive scheme to restrain competition in the market for Humira and its biosimilar competitors. This action is pending in the United States District Court of the Northern District of Illinois before the Honorable Manish S. Shah.
LGN serves on the Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee for a class of end payer purchasers of certain generic prescription drugs. We allege that manufacturers conspired to fix the prices of more than 150 different generic drugs. The action is pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania before the Honorable Cynthia Rufe.
LGN serves on the Executive Committee in a proposed class action lawsuit against drug manufacturer Gilead and other major drug manufacturers including Johnson & Johnson, Bristol-Meyers Squibb and others. We allege that these drug manufacturers knowingly colluded to raise the price of anti-HIV drugs and as a result, they illegally raised the price of treatment for approximately 1 million people in the U.S. currently living with Human Immunodeficiency Virus-1 (HIV) infection. The case is pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California before the Honorable Edward M. Chen.
On January 26, 2021, the antitrust team at Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P., along with the team at Shindler, Anderson, Goplerud & Weese P.C., filed an antitrust class action lawsuit on behalf of our client and purchasers of Crop Inputs (seeds and crop protection chemicals, such as fungicides, herbicides, and insecticides, used by farmers). The lawsuit alleges anticompetitive conduct by major Crop Inputs manufacturers, wholesalers, and retailers, by, among other things, jointly boycotting companies that would have introduced lower prices of Crop Inputs through online sales. As a result of the anticompetitive conduct, purchasers, such as American farmers, have paid artificially high prices for Crop Inputs.
Background
The market for Crop Inputs is dominated by four major manufacturers (Bayer CropScience Inc., Corteva Inc., Syngenta Corp., and BASF Corp.), three large wholesalers that control the distribution of Crop Inputs to purchasers (Cargill Inc., Winfield Solutions, LLC, and Univar Solutions, Inc.), and retailers (including CHS Inc., Nutrien Ag Solutions Inc., GROWMARK, Inc., Simplot AB Retail Sub, Tenkoz Inc., and Federated Co-operatives Ltd.). The existing distribution and sale process for Crop Inputs is structured to maximize opacity and deny purchasers access to objective pricing data and product information needed to make informed purchasing decisions about the Crop Inputs.
Recently, electronic Crop Inputs sales platforms have launched to provide a cheaper and more transparent way for purchasers to buy Crop Inputs, and circumvent the existing opaque and convoluted distribution system. These electronic platforms threaten the manufacturers’, wholesalers’, and retailers’ dominant market position and control over Crop Inputs pricing. This lawsuit alleges that the manufacturers, wholesalers, and retailers conspired to block the electronic platforms’ access to the Crop Inputs market by engaging in group boycott to deny the electronic platforms of products to sell.
Were you affected by the alleged Crop Inputs conspiracy?
You may have overpaid if you purchased a Crop Input between 2014 and today, and the Crop Input was manufactured by any of the following companies: Bayer CropScience Inc., Corteva Inc., Syngenta Corp., or BASF Corp.
If you would like to discuss your legal options, please contact Joe Bruckner (wjbruckner@locklaw.com), Rob Shelquist (rkshelquist@locklaw.com), Brian Clark (bdclark@locklaw.com), or Rebecca Peterson (rapeterson@locklaw.com), or at 612-339-6900.
01-26-2021
Class Action Complaint
In December 2019, Lockridge Grindal Nauen filed an antitrust class action on behalf of our clients alleging that the nation’s largest turkey producers colluded to restraint turkey production, knowing that such an artificial supply restriction would lead to higher prices. On October 19, 2020, Judge Virginia M. Kendall of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois denied all but one defendant’s motions to dismiss the complaint, and upheld the allegations in our complaint. Now we will move forward with discovery from the defendants to prove our allegations and support our upcoming motion for class certification.
Background
The turkey producers named as defendants in this case are Butterball LLC, Cargill, Inc., Cargill Meat Solutions Corp., Cooper Farms, Inc., Farbest Foods, Inc., Hormel Foods Corp., Hormel Foods, LLC, House of Raeford Farms, Inc., Kraft Heinz Foods Company, Kraft Foods Brands, LLC, Perdue Farms, Inc., Perdue Foods, LLC, Tyson Foods, Inc., Hillshire Brands Company, Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc., and Tyson Prepared Foods, Inc.
Plaintiffs allege that beginning no later than 2010, turkey producers acted together to artificially reduce the supply of turkey for sale in the United States, knowing that a reduced supply would increase prices. Defendants coordinated their supply reductions by sharing confidential production information with one another through Agri Stats, an information sharing service. As a result, from at least 2010 to 2017, turkey prices were artificially inflated. On June 16, 2020, Judge Virginia M. Kendall appointed Lockridge Grindal Nauen as interim co-lead counsel in this matter. Judge Kendall dismissed Kraft Foods from the action in her October 19, 2020 order, but the case will proceed against all other defendants.
Were you affected by the alleged turkey conspiracy?
If you purchased turkey between 2010 and 2017 from any of the above companies or their subsidiaries, you may have overpaid.
If you would like to discuss your legal options, please contact Joe Bruckner or Brian Clark at wjbruckner@locklaw.com, bdclark@locklaw.com, or at 612-339-6900.
10-19-2020
Order Denying in Part and Granting in Part Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss
12-19-2019
Complaint – Olean Wholesale v Agri Stats
12-20-2019
Article – Lawsuit alleges turkey companies conspired to keep prices high | FERN’s Ag Insider
On May 24, 2019, the antitrust team at Lockridge Grindal Nauen, along with other firms, filed the first indirect purchaser antitrust class action on behalf of our clients alleging anticompetitive conduct by major Atlantic Salmon producers. Our clients and the class we intend to represent are indirect purchasers of farm-raised Atlantic salmon. In February 2019, the European Commission confirmed it opened up an investigation and commenced unannounced inspections of several producers of farmed Atlantic Salmon. See http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_STATEMENT-19-1310_en.htm.
Background
On behalf of our clients we allege that beginning around July 2015, Atlantic salmon producers fixed, raised, maintained and/or stabilized the prices of farm-raised Atlantic salmon sold in the United States. Alleged conduct includes coordinating sales prices and exchanging commercially sensitive information, agreeing to purchase production from other competitors when those other competitors were selling at lower prices, and applying a coordinated strategy to increase spot prices in order to secure higher price levels for long term contracts. As a result, since 2015 farm-raised Atlantic salmon prices have been artificially inflated.
Were you affected by the alleged Salmon conspiracy?
You may have overpaid if you bought farm-raised Atlantic Salmon indirectly between 2015 and today, and the Salmon you bought was produced or packaged by any of the following companies or their subsidiaries: Mowi ASA (f/k/a Marine Harvest ASA), Mowi USA, LLC (f/k/a Marine Harvest USA, LLC), Marine Harvest Canada, Inc., Ducktrap River of Maine LLC, Grieg Seafood ASA, Grieg Seafood BC Ltd., Bremnes Seashore AS, Ocean Quality AS, Ocean Quality North America Inc., Ocean Quality USA Inc., Ocean Quality Premium Brands, Inc., SalMar ASA, Lerøy Seafood Group ASA, Lerøy Seafood USA Inc., and Scottish Sea Farms Ltd.
If you would like to discuss your legal options, please contact Heidi Silton or Sherri Juell at hmsilton@locklaw.com and sljuell@locklaw.com, or at 612-339-6900.
On November 4, 2020, direct purchaser plaintiffs and defendant JBS USA Food Company announced that they have reached a settlement agreement in this case. In the near future Direct purchaser plaintiffs will move the Court to preliminarily approve the settlement, and we will provide a copy of the notice when available. That notice will contain more details about the settlement. JBS has not admitted any liability and continues to deny the allegations in plaintiffs’ complaint, while plaintiffs believe they would have prevailed.
The settlement with JBS came shortly after the Court’s ruling on October 16, 2020 (as amended on October 20, 2020), upholding plaintiffs’ allegations that the defendant pork integrators and Agri Stats conspired to restrain pork production and raise pork prices. The Court denied 7 of the 8 defendants’ motions to dismiss the direct purchasers’ complaint. We will pursue full discovery to vigorously prosecute this case on behalf of the class.
This case began on June 29, 2018, when the antitrust team at Lockridge Grindal Nauen filed the first direct purchaser plaintiff antitrust class action on behalf of our client alleging anticompetitive conduct by pork producers. Our client and the class we intend to represent are direct purchasers of pork from 8 defendants. On September 26, 2018, the Court appointed Lockridge Grindal Nauen and Pearson Simon Warshaw as lead counsel for the direct purchaser plaintiffs.
Background
Plaintiffs allege that beginning in 2009, pork producers coordinated their efforts to artificially reduce the supply of pork for sale in the United States, knowing that those supply reductions would increase prices. Defendants coordinated their supply reductions by sharing confidential production information with one another through Agri Stats, an information sharing service. As a result, since 2009 pork prices have been artificially inflated.
Were you affected by the alleged pork conspiracy?
If you purchased pork between 2009 and today from any of the following companies or their subsidiaries, you may have overpaid: Clemens Food Group, Hormel Foods, Indiana Packers, JBS USA, Seaboard Foods, Smithfield Foods, Triumph Foods, and Tyson Foods.
If you would like to discuss your legal options, please contact Joe Bruckner or Brian Clark at wjbruckner@locklaw.com, bdclark@locklaw.com, or at 612-339-6900.
10-20-2020
Amended Order Denying Motions to Dismiss
01-15-2020
Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs’ Third Amended and Consolidated Complaint
11-06-2019
Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs’ Second Amended and Consolidated Complaint
9-26-2018
Court Order – LGN antitrust attorneys appointed lead counsel.
08-17-2018
Consolidated Amended Complaint
In Spring 2019, the antitrust team at Lockridge Grindal Nauen, along with other firms filed complaints on behalf of indirect purchasers of Viega copper press pipe fittings alleging anticompetitive conduct by Viega. Copper press fittings are used in plumbing, heating, and cooling. Viega sells its copper press fittings almost exclusively through wholesale distributors under the brand name ProPress®, and the fittings are available in multiple configurations and diameters.
Background
On behalf of our clients we allege that beginning around January 29, 2015, Viega, a manufacturer of copper press pipe fittings, created barriers to entry for potential competitors by coercing wholesalers not to purchase copper press fittings from competitors by threatening to withhold availability of other Viega products.
Were you affected?
You may have overpaid, if you purchased Viega’s copper press fittings via a wholesale distributor for plumbing, heating, and cooling use, in either commercial or residential projects.
If you would like to discuss your legal options, please contact Heidi Silton or Sherri Juell at hmsilton@locklaw.com and sljuell@locklaw.com, or at 612-339-6900.
On December 2, 2020, the Court granted plaintiffs’ motion for class certification, ruling that plaintiffs have met all the requirements necessary to pursue their case against the defendant peanut shellers as a class action. The Court focused much of its ruling on the expert analysis submitted by plaintiffs, finding that the analysis contains plausible evidence in support of plaintiffs’ alleged conspiracy. Plaintiffs are now seeking approval from the Court for their plan to provide notice to all potential members of the class certified by the Court. Plaintiffs continue to vigorously prosecute their case and prepare for trial against the remaining, non-settling defendant Golden Peanut.
On September 5th, 2019, the antitrust team at Lockridge Grindal Nauen filed an antitrust lawsuit on behalf of peanut farmers against the two largest peanut shellers in the country, Golden Peanut and Birdsong. The complaint alleges that Birdsong and Golden Peanut coordinated with one another in violation of antitrust laws to underpay farmers for runner peanuts, the primary type of commercial peanut raised. As a result, peanut farmers have suffered from years of low payments for their crops.
In October and November 2020, the antitrust team at Lockridge Grindal Nauen announced that two defendants in this action, Birdsong and Olam, have agreed to settle plaintiffs’ claims against them for a total of $57.75 million. Birdsong agreed to settle for $50 million and Olam agreed to settle for $7.75 million. Plaintiffs have moved the court for preliminary approval of the settlements. Plaintiffs’ claims against the remaining defendant, Golden Peanut, are scheduled to go to trial on January 19, 2021, in federal district court in Norfolk, VA.
The antitrust team at Lockridge Grindal Nauen commenced this antitrust lawsuit in September 2019 on behalf of peanut farmers against the largest peanut shellers in the country, Golden Peanut Company and Birdsong Corporation. Plaintiffs later named a third peanut sheller, Olam Peanut Shelling Company, as a defendant. Our clients allege that instead of competing, Birdsong, Golden Peanut, and Olam coordinated with one another in violation of antitrust laws to underpay farmers for runner peanuts, the primary type of commercial peanut raised. As a result, peanut farmers have suffered from years of low payments for their crops.
Background
Peanut shelling companies play a crucial role in the peanut production process, as the overwhelming majority of peanuts are sold to shelling plants after harvest to be processed and packaged for food companies or other manufacturers.
Since January 2014, the prices farmers received from shellers for runner peanuts have remained remarkably low and stagnant, despite significant market changes and supply disruptions. The lawsuit alleges Birdsong and Golden Peanut began coordinating after the peanut industry experienced drastic weather-related price changes in 2011-2013 that made it difficult for those shellers to manage risk and plan for production. Among other things, beginning in at least 2014, Birdsong and Golden Peanut over-reported peanut and runner inventory numbers to the USDA to create a false impression of an oversupplied market. The defendants capitalized on the perceived oversupply to offer artificially low runner prices to farmers. The defendants also under-reported peanut and runner prices to the USDA to further suppress prices and keep them low and less volatile. Birdsong and Golden Peanut offer nearly identical shelling contracts to farmers, often within the same day of one another, to limit the negotiating power and pricing options for farmers.
The peanut shelling industry is particularly susceptible to antitrust conspiracies due to high consolidation within the industry and a lack of pricing transparency. Unlike other agricultural commodities, there is no futures market for peanuts. Instead, peanut prices are set through private contracting between shellers and farmers. As the dominant players holding 80-90% of the industry’s market share, Birdsong and Golden Peanut dictate the prices offered to peanut farmers.
On May 13, 2020, Judge Raymond A. Jackson denied defendants’ motions to dismiss class plaintiffs’ complaint, and held that class plaintiffs sufficiently alleged that the defendant peanut shelters colluded to suppress the prices they paid peanut farmers. On May 27, 2020, class plaintiffs amended their complaint to add Olam Peanut Shelling Company, Inc.
On September 4, 2020, plaintiffs filed a motion to certify the proposed class of peanut farmers who sold runner peanuts to the three defendant peanut shellers, Golden Peanut, Birdsong, and Olam, from at least January 1, 2014 through December 31, 2019. The motion remains pending.
On October 23, 2020, plaintiffs entered into a class action settlement agreement with Olam for $7.75 million in cash. On November 2, 2020, plaintiffs entered into a class action agreement with Birdsong for $50 million in cash. Plaintiffs filed motions for preliminary approval of both settlements, which are pending in court.
Trial for the remaining defendant, Golden Peanut, is currently set to begin January 19, 2021.
Are you a peanut farmer?
If you are a peanut farmer who sold peanuts to Golden Peanut or Birdsong since 2014, please contact us.
If you would like to discuss your legal options, please contact Joe Bruckner or Brian Clark at wjbruckner@locklaw.com, bdclark@locklaw.com, or at 612-339-6900.
1/15/2021
Op-ed piece on the peanut sheller monopoly.
12/14/2020
Media coverage of the case.
12-02-2020
Amended Class Cert Order
11-02-2020
Class Action Settlement Agreement Between Plaintiffs and Defendant Birdsong
11-02-2020
Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement with Defendant Birdsong
10-23-2020
Class Action Settlement Agreement Between Plaintiffs and Defendant Olam
10-23-2020
Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement with Defendant Olam
05-27-2020
Second Amended Complaint
05-14-2020
Order Denying Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss
09-05-2019
Peanut Farmer Antitrust Complaint
09-05-2019
Media Coverage of Case
09-05-2019
Media Coverage of Case
On April 26, 2019, the antitrust team at Lockridge Grindal Nauen, along with the antitrust team at Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro, filed the first end user indirect purchaser antitrust class action on behalf of our clients alleging anticompetitive conduct by major beef producers. Our clients and the class we intend to represent are end user purchasers of beef, such as people who purchased beef at a grocery store.
Background
On behalf of our clients we allege that beginning in 2015, beef packers coordinated to artificially reduce the supply aof beef in the United States, knowing and intending that reduced supply would raise beef prices. Among other ways, Defendants coordinated their supply reductions by sharing confidential production information and other competitively sensitive information with one another through Agri Stats, an information sharing service. As a result, since 2015 beef prices to American consumers have been artificially inflated.
Were you affected by the alleged beef conspiracy?
You may have overpaid if you bought beef for personal consumption between 2015 and today, and the beef you bought was processed or packed by any of the following companies or their subsidiaries: Tyson Foods, JBS USA, National Beef Packing Company, or Cargill, Inc.
If you would like to discuss your legal options, please contact Joe Bruckner or Brian Clark at wjbruckner@locklaw.com, bdclark@locklaw.com, or at 612-339-6900.
04-26-2019
Class Action Complaint
Lockridge Grindal Nauen PLLP
100 Washington Avenue South
Suite 2200
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401-2159
Phone: 612-339-6900
Lockridge Grindal Nauen PLLP
1165 N. Clark Street
Suite 700
Chicago, IL 60610
Phone: 312-205-8968
Lockridge Grindal Nauen PLLP
265 Franklin Street
Suite 1702
Boston, MA 02110
Phone: 617-535-3763
This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies.
Accept settingsHide notification onlySettingsWe may request cookies to be set on your device. We use cookies to let us know when you visit our websites, how you interact with us, to enrich your user experience, and to customize your relationship with our website.
Click on the different category headings to find out more. You can also change some of your preferences. Note that blocking some types of cookies may impact your experience on our websites and the services we are able to offer.
These cookies are strictly necessary to provide you with services available through our website and to use some of its features.
Because these cookies are strictly necessary to deliver the website, refuseing them will have impact how our site functions. You always can block or delete cookies by changing your browser settings and force blocking all cookies on this website. But this will always prompt you to accept/refuse cookies when revisiting our site.
We fully respect if you want to refuse cookies but to avoid asking you again and again kindly allow us to store a cookie for that. You are free to opt out any time or opt in for other cookies to get a better experience. If you refuse cookies we will remove all set cookies in our domain.
We provide you with a list of stored cookies on your computer in our domain so you can check what we stored. Due to security reasons we are not able to show or modify cookies from other domains. You can check these in your browser security settings.
These cookies collect information that is used either in aggregate form to help us understand how our website is being used or how effective our marketing campaigns are, or to help us customize our website and application for you in order to enhance your experience.
If you do not want that we track your visit to our site you can disable tracking in your browser here:
We also use different external services like Google Webfonts, Google Maps, and external Video providers. Since these providers may collect personal data like your IP address we allow you to block them here. Please be aware that this might heavily reduce the functionality and appearance of our site. Changes will take effect once you reload the page.
Google Webfont Settings:
Google Map Settings:
Google reCaptcha Settings:
Vimeo and Youtube video embeds: