Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, ANTITRUST—D. Colo.: Meat workers carve settlement agreements with Agri Stats, Greater Omaha, in wage suppression action, (Apr 17, 2026)

By Justin Marcus Smith, J.D.

The two consultancy defendants, first WMS, and now Agri Stats, have settled.

Meat workers who brought a wage suppression antitrust class action against 15 meat processors and other defendants secured preliminary court approval of two more settlements on motion before the federal district court in Denver, Colorado. If the court grants final approval, data consultancy Agri Stats, Inc. (Agri Stats) is to eliminate specific data fields from pork processing reports if it resumes publishing such reports and cooperate with the plaintiffs by producing structured data. Greater Omaha Packing Co., Inc. (Greater Omaha) agreed to pay $100,000 into settlement and will also cooperate by producing structured compensation data. The court preliminarily approved a class of meat workers employed over a 24-year period starting in 2000 and ending in early 2024. The court concluded that certifying the class would allow the plaintiffs to gain immediate resources to litigate their remaining claims (Brown v. JBS USA Food Co., No. 1:22-cv-02946-PAB-STV (D. Colo. Apr. 16, 2026)).

Background. In 2022, two workers in the red meat processing industry brought a putative class action against 15 processors and their respective subsidiaries, plus two consulting firms. The complaint alleged conspiracies to exchange information in order to suppress wages in the meat processing industry in violation of the Sherman Act. The first amended complaint largely survived motions to dismiss.

The court already preliminarily approved settlement agreements with 16 defendants in 2024 and 2025.

• Settling defendants in February 2024 were: Perdue Farms Inc.; Seaboard Foods, LLC, Triumph Foods, LLC; and data consultancy Webber, Meng, Sahl, and Company, Inc. (WMS).

• Settling defendants in January 2025 were: JBS USA Food Company; Tyson Foods, Inc.; American Foods Group, LLC; National Beef Packing Co., LLC; Cargill, Inc.; Cargill Meat Solutions Corp.; Hormel Foods Corp.; Rochelle Foods, LLC; and Quality Pork Processors, Inc.

• Settling defendants in October 2025 were: Agri Beef Co., Washington Beef, LLC; and Indiana Packers Corporation.

Approvals requested. The plaintiffs now asked the court to:

• grant preliminary approval of the settlement agreements with Agri Stats and Greater Omaha;

• certify the proposed Agri Stats and Greater Omaha settlement classes consisting of all persons the defendant meat processors, their subsidiaries, or related entities employed at beef and pork processing plants in the continental U.S. from January 1, 2000 until the date of the first preliminary approval of a settlement in this action, February 27, 2024;

• appoint the law firms Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, and Handley Farah & Anderson PLLC as settlement class counsel;

• appoint named representative plaintiffs as class representatives of the Agri Stats and Greater Omaha settlement classes;

• approve the revised, proposed notice documents and notice plan; and

• grant a stay of all proceedings against Greater Omaha and Agri Stats except as necessary to settle.

Agreements. The Greater Omaha settlement provided that Greater Omaha will, in exchange for prejudicial dismissal of the claims against it:

• pay $100,000 into the settlement fund; and

• cooperate with plaintiffs by producing structured compensation data on members of the class employed by Greater Omaha.

The Agri Stats settlement provided that Agri Stats shall, in exchange for prejudicial dismissal of the claims against it:

• eliminate specific data fields from reports about pork processing should it resume publishing such reports; and

• cooperate with plaintiffs by producing structured data for the Swine Processing and Operations Profits books from 2008 to the end of the Pork Reports in June 2018.

Numerosity. The court found the number of class members, thought to be in the thousands, was ascertainable without individual determinations.

Commonality. The court found questions common to the class because a conspiracy to fix wages in the entire market would affect all employees, regardless of individual wage negotiations.

Typicality. The court found the plaintiffs brought claims typical of the proposed class inasmuch as the plaintiffs argued all class members faced the same antitrust violations.

Representation adequate. The court found the representative plaintiffs and their counsel fairly and adequately represented the interests of the class. The representative plaintiffs stated they had no material conflict with other class members. Each said they suffered wage suppression harm, and each shared an overriding interest in establishing the defendants’ liability and maximizing class-wide damages. Any class members who disagree can raise a challenge at the fairness hearing.

Interim co-lead counsel, consisting of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, PLLC, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, and Handley Farah & Anderson PLLC, had been working on the case for over three years. The court already found they had experience in class actions, antitrust litigation, and the types of claims here. There was no doubt about their competency.

Predominance. Turning to R. 23(b)(3), the court said it agreed with the plaintiffs that common questions predominated. Proof of a conspiracy pertained to the alleged antitrust violation common to the entire class. Evidence of market wages and any suppression of the wages of the defendants’ employees went to the alleged injury. Damages might vary, but the question of what the competitive market wage should have been will be common to the class and enough at this stage to show a common question as to the measure of damages.

The court also found class settlement to be the superior method of disposition. The plaintiffs asserted that no potential settlement class members were pursuing parallel antitrust claims against these defendants.

Fairness, adequacy. The court noted the following R.23(e) fairness, reasonability, and adequacy factors favored settlement:

• the parties produced the settlement agreements after significant negotiations over several months;

• sophisticated counsel represented the parties in the discussions;

• there were serious questions about whether Agri Stats and Greater Omaha illegally conspired to suppress the wages of meat processor workers;

• there was no evidence that the settlement agreements were the product of collusion between the parties;

• the value of immediate recovery outweighed the mere possibility of future relief; and

• plaintiffs’ counsel had extensive experience in antitrust litigation and stated the settlement agreements were fair and reasonable.

The presumption of fairness to be drawn from the above was sufficient for preliminary approval. The court concluded that certifying the class would allow the plaintiffs to gain immediate resources to litigate their remaining claims and allow the court to determine whether there are other class members that would challenge fairness.

Notice. The court found the plaintiffs’ plan to provide notice would reasonably apprise absent class members of the action. The court already approved a notice schedule in October 2025 for the earlier 2024 and 2025 settlements. The plaintiffs said revisions to the notices the court already approved were mere updates. The court extended all deadlines by 50 days with notice to commence on or before May 1, 2026.

Stay. The court agreed to stay the proceedings against Agri Stats and Greater Omaha in light of the settlement agreement.

Class counsel. The court agreed to appoint interim lead co-counsel, consisting of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, and Handley Farah & Anderson PLLC, as co-lead counsel for the settlement class. The court agreed with the plaintiffs that the counselors had sufficient experience.

The Case is No. 1:22-cv-02946-PAB-STV.

Judge: Brimmer, P.

Attorneys: Abby R. Wolf (Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP) for Ron Brown. Christian T. Becker (Kasowitz LLP) for JBS USA Food Co.

Companies: JBS USA Food Co.

MainStory: TopStory Antitrust ColoradoNews GCNNews