About
About the DOJ's Case & Final Judgements
On July 25, 2022, the DOJ filed a Complaint alleging that from at least 2000 to July 2022, Cargill, Wayne and Sanderson, three of the largest poultry producers in the United States, participated in an anticompetitive information exchange with competing poultry processors and industry consultants involving sharing compensation information relating to processing plant workers, including detailed current and future wage and benefit data. As a result, the DOJ alleged that Cargill, Wayne, and Sanderson set and paid artificially suppressed wages and benefits for its hourly and salaried poultry processing plant workers.
Subsequently, the DOJ alleged that George’s, Inc. and George’s Foods, LLC, also participated in the anticompetitive information exchange with competing poultry processors and industry consultants, including Cargill, Wayne and Sanderson (collectively, the “Settling Defendants”).
The DOJ alleged that the Settling Defendants’ agreement to exchange compensation information and the resulting wage suppression violated the federal antitrust laws, namely Section 1 of the Sherman Act. Separately, the DOJ’s Complaint alleged that Defendant Wayne-Sanderson engaged in deceptive practices with poultry growers regarding their growing contracts, in violation of the Packers and Stockyards Act.
As a result of the investigations, Cargill, Wayne-Sanderson, and George’s entered into separate agreements with the DOJ to end the investigations and settle the allegations against them. Cargill and Wayne-Sanderson entered into a Final Judgment approved by the District Court for the District of Maryland on June 5, 2023, modified on April 9, 2024. George’s entered into a Final Judgment approved by the court on August 22, 2023, modified April 9, 2024.
Under these Final Judgments, the Settling Defendants are prohibited from engaging in certain conduct, whether “directly or indirectly, including through a Consulting Firm or other person.” Specifically, the Settling Defendants may not :
- participate in any meeting or gathering (including in-person, virtual, and telephonic meetings and gatherings) related to Compensation for Poultry Processing Workers, or for any purpose related to Compensation for Poultry Processing Workers, at which any other Poultry Processor not owned or operated by one or a combination of Settling Defendants is present;
- Communicate Competitively Sensitive Information about Compensation for Poultry Processing Workers with any Poultry Processor not owned or operated by one or a combination of Settling Defendants, including about types, amounts, or methods of setting or negotiating Compensation for Poultry Processing Workers;
- attempt to enter into, enter into, maintain, or enforce any Agreement with any Poultry Processor not owned or operated by one or a combination of Settling Defendants about Poultry Processing Worker Compensation information, including how to set or decide Compensation or the types of Compensation for Poultry Processing Workers;
- Communicate Competitively Sensitive Information about Compensation for Poultry Processing Workers to any Poultry Processor not owned or operated by one or a combination of Settling Defendants, including Communicating Competitively Sensitive Information about Compensation for Poultry Processing Workers to any Consulting Firm that produces reports regarding Compensation for Poultry Processing Workers that are shared with other Poultry Processors;
- use non-public, Competitively Sensitive Information about Compensation for Poultry Processing Workers from or about any Poultry Processor not owned or operated by one or a combination of Settling Defendants;
- encourage or facilitate the communication of Competitively Sensitive Information about Compensation for Poultry Processing Workers to or from any Poultry Processor not owned or operated by one or a combination of Settling Defendants; and
- retaliate against any employee or third party, such as a Grower, for disclosing information to the monitor, a government antitrust enforcement agency, or a government legislature.
As explained in the Final Judgment, the preceding capitalized terms are defined as follows:
- A. “Agreement” means any contract, arrangement, or understanding, formal or informal, oral or written, between two or more persons.
- B. “Cargill, Inc.” means Defendant Cargill, Incorporated, a privately-held company headquartered in Wayzata, Minnesota, its successors and assigns, subsidiaries, divisions, groups, affiliates, partnerships, and joint ventures, and their directors, officers, managers, agents, and employees.
- C. “Cargill Meat Solutions” means Defendant Cargill Meat Solutions Corporation, a Delaware company headquartered in Wichita, Kansas, that is a wholly owned subsidiary of Cargill, Inc., and its successors and assigns, subsidiaries, divisions, groups, affiliates, partnerships, and joint ventures, and their directors, officers, managers, agents, and employees.
- D. “Communicate” means to discuss, disclose, transfer, disseminate, circulate, provide, request, solicit, send, receive or exchange information or opinion, formally or informally, directly or indirectly, in any manner, and regardless of the means by which it is accomplished, including orally or by written means of any kind, such as electronic communications, e-mails, facsimiles, telephone communications, voicemails, text messages, audio recordings, meetings, interviews, correspondence, exchange of written or recorded information, including surveys, or face-to-face meetings.
- E. “Compensation” means all forms of payment for work, including salaried pay, hourly pay, regular or ad hoc bonuses, over-time pay, and benefits, including healthcare coverage, vacation or personal leave, sick leave, and life insurance or disability insurance policies.
- F. “Competitively Sensitive Information” means information that is relevant to, or likely to have an impact on, at least one dimension of competition, including price, cost (including Compensation), output, quality, and innovation. Competitively Sensitive Information includes prices, strategic plans, amounts and types of Compensation, formula and algorithms used for calculating Compensation or proposed Compensation, other information related to costs or profits, markets, distribution, business relationships, customer lists, production capacity, and any confidential information the exchange of which could harm competition.
- G. “Consulting Firm” means any organization, including Webber, Meng, Sahl & Company, Inc. and Agri Stats, Inc., that gathers, sorts, compiles, and/or sells information about Compensation for Poultry Processing Workers, or provides advice regarding Compensation for Poultry Processing Workers; “Consulting Firm” does not include job boards, employment agencies or other entities that facilitate employment opportunities for employees.
- H. “George’s, Inc.” means Defendant George’s, Inc., a privately-held company headquartered in Springdale, Arkansas, its successors and assigns, subsidiaries, divisions, groups, affiliates, partnerships, and joint ventures, and their directors, officers, managers, agents, and employees.
- I. “George’s Foods” means Defendant George’s Foods, LLC, a company headquartered in Edinburg, Virginia that is an affiliate of George’s, Inc., and its successors and assigns, subsidiaries, divisions, groups, affiliates, partnerships, and joint ventures, and their directors, officers, managers, agents, and employees.
- J. “Grower” means any person engaged in the business of raising and caring for live Poultry for slaughter by another, whether the Poultry is owned by such a person or by another, but not an employee of the owner of such Poultry.
- K. “Including” means including, but not limited to.
- L. “Person” means any natural person, corporation, firm, company, sole proprietorship, partnership, joint venture, association, institute, governmental unit, or other legal entity.
- M. “Poultry” means chicken or turkey.
- N. “Poultry Processing” means the business of raising, slaughtering, cleaning, packing, packaging, and related activities associated with producing Poultry, including activities conducted by Poultry Processors at integrated feed mills, hatcheries, and processing plant facilities and the management of those activities; “Poultry Processing” does not include Cargill Meat Solutions’ egg businesses or any of the CMS Secondary Processing Facilities, but it does include the downstream sale of products made from Poultry transferred from one of Cargill Meat Solutions’ slaughter facilities to one of the CMS Secondary Processing Facilities.
- O. “Poultry Processing Worker” means anyone paid any Compensation, directly or indirectly (such as through a temporary employment agency or third-party staffing agency), by a Poultry Processor related to Poultry Processing, including temporary workers, permanent workers, employees, workers paid hourly wages, workers paid salaried wages, and workers paid benefits.
- P. “Poultry Processor” means any person (1) who is engaged in Poultry Processing or (2) that has full or partial ownership or control of a Poultry Processing facility, or (3) that provides Compensation to Poultry Processing Workers; “Poultry Processor” does not include staffing agencies or other entities that are not owned, operated, or controlled by a person engaged in Poultry Processing or that owns or controls, in full or part, Poultry Processing facilities, that make individuals available to work at Poultry Processing facilities.
- Q. “Sanderson” means Defendant Sanderson Farms, Inc., a publicly traded Mississippi corporation headquartered in Laurel, Mississippi, and its successors and assigns, subsidiaries, divisions, groups, affiliates, partnerships, and joint ventures, and their directors, officers, managers, agents and employees. Continental Grain Company is not an affiliate, successor or assign of Sanderson Farms, Inc.
- R. “Wayne” means Defendant Wayne Farms, LLC, a Delaware company headquartered in Oakwood, Georgia, the controlling shareholder of which is Continental Grain Company, a privately-held firm headquartered in New York, New York, and its successors and assigns, subsidiaries, divisions, groups, affiliates, partnerships, and joint ventures, and their directors, officers, managers, agents, and employees.
The Final Judgments also require the Settling Defendants to undertake several notice, training, and reporting obligations to both third parties and the DOJ.
Additionally, with respect to Wayne-Sanderson specifically, the Final Judgment generally prohibits Wayne-Sanderson from reducing payments to growers supplying broiler chickens as a result of the grower’s performance in “tournaments,” with certain exceptions.
In addition, Wayne-Sanderson [and Cargill] must also comply with the Final Rule on “Transparency in Poultry Grower Contracting and Tournaments” issued by the United States Department of Agriculture on November 28, 2023. The Final Rule requires Wayne-Sanderson to provide to growers a Live Poultry Dealer Disclosure Document meets various criteria. A link to the USDA’s website about the Final Transparency Rule amending the Packers and Stockyards Act regulations is here.
Lastly, the Final Judgments require the Monitor to investigate and report on Cargill, Wayne-Sanderson, and George’s (1) compliance with the terms of Final Judgments entered by the Court, and (2) compliance with the U.S. federal antitrust laws relating to Poultry Processing, Poultry Processing Workers, Growers, integrated Poultry feed, hatcheries, the transportation of Poultry and Poultry products, and the sale of Poultry and Poultry Processing products, as those terms are defined in the Final Judgments and explained on this website.
Meet the Monitor Team
Dylan Carson, Lead Monitor
Dylan Carson is a Partner with Manatt, Phelps and Phillips, with major experience in antitrust litigation, federal and state government antitrust investigations, and competition law counseling. For more than 20 years, Dylan has represented clients in federal and state court antitrust trials, before judges and juries, as both plaintiff and defendant. A former trial attorney at the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), Dylan is among the short list of antitrust attorneys to have successfully prosecuted and defended high-stakes merger trials. In private practice, he has represented clients before federal and state antitrust enforcers, including the Antitrust Division, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and state attorneys general.
While at the Antitrust Division, Dylan received the Attorney General’s Award for Distinguished Service, which is the second highest award for employee performance at the DOJ. He was also honored with the Assistant Attorney General Award of Distinction—the highest Antitrust Division performance award—three years in a row for his investigation and litigation efforts. Some of his most impactful work includes being one of the key trial lawyers in courtroom challenges to two of the largest mergers in history as well as in a challenge to a dominant technology firm’s attempt to acquire an innovative rival.
William E. Berlin, Deputy Monitor
William Berlin is a Shareholder in the Washington, D.C., office of
Hall, Render, Killian, Heath & Lyman, P.C., and heads the firm’s antitrust and competition practice group. His litigation and government investigations frequently involve managing difficult procedural issues, including large-scale electronic discovery. Bill also serves as a monitor, arbitrator and mediator in antitrust disputes between health care and other entities and counsels clients regarding antitrust compliance programs.
In addition to his position as Deputy Monitor in this matter, Bill has been appointed Monitoring Trustee by the Department of Justice and approved by the court to oversee two multi-billion dollar merger divestitures, appointed as Monitor by the Federal Trade Commission in two other large merger divestitures, and appointed by the California Office of Attorney General as Monitor in a health system merger. Prior to joining Hall Render, he was in private practice and served as a senior trial attorney with the Antitrust Division’s Health Care Task Force of the U.S. Department of Justice where he led investigations and litigation of both merger and non-merger civil antitrust cases, including the Division’s most recent trial victory in a Section 2 monopolization case.
Other Monitor Team Members Include
Stephen Libowsky
Partner | Manatt, Phelps and Phillips
Nathan Chubb
Shareholder | Hall, Render, Killian, Heath & Lyman, P.C.