Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, ANTITRUST—N.D. Ga.: Tyson prevails at summary judgment on rendering plant sellers’ Sherman Act claims, (Mar 5, 2026)

By Justin Marcus Smith, J.D.

There was no evidence of a horizontal or “hub-and-spoke” conspiracy, and the asset seller plaintiffs did not show any antitrust injury.

American Proteins, Inc. (API) and other plaintiffs who sued Tyson Poultry, Inc. (Tyson) and others did not show any horizontal restraint to trigger per se liability under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, held the federal district court in Gainesville, Georgia, in granting Tyson’s motion for summary judgment and denying API’s motion for partial summary judgment. Disputed supply agreements were vertical agreements. Moreover, API did not show antitrust injury in connection with the alleged devalued sale price of its assets to Tyson in 2018 or lost profits for its Section 1 rule-of-reason and Section 2 claims. In addition, the court concluded API was not an efficient enforcer for any alleged antitrust injury outside the Southeast Poultry Rendering Market. API, the former monopolist, did not have a claim for exclusive dealing. Even if API had antitrust standing, API failed to show predatory intent for the purpose of its Section 2 claims (American Proteins, Inc. v. River Valley Ingredients, LLC, No. 2:22-cv-00091-RWS (N.D. Ga. Mar. 3, 2026)).

Background. In 2022, the former owners of four chicken rendering plants (collectively, API) sued Tyson and other defendants asserting three antitrust claims for violation of the Sherman Act. Tyson acquired the plants from API as part of an $825 million asset purchase agreement in 2018. The plants served poultry processors in Georgia, Alabama, north Florida, and south Tennessee. Poultry rendering tends to be highly concentrated by region because poultry processors can only ship nonedible chicken parts for rendering into pet food and other products at a distance of about 125 miles before the parts become rancid and unusable.

API alleged Tyson unreasonably restrained trade by group boycott or concerted refusal to deal, by conspiring to monopolize, and by ultimately establishing a monopoly. API said Tyson used intimidation tactics to accumulate over 90 percent of the market share for rendering within the region. API alleged a depressed sale price for its assets and lost profits.

In November 2022, the court denied a Tyson motion to dismiss. Tyson argued lack of standing, expiration of the limitations period, and failure to allege the elements of the Sherman Act claims. However, the court found the former owners had standing. The court also ruled it could not decide whether Tyson overtly acted to further an antitrust conspiracy within the limitations period at the pleading stage.

Most recently, Tyson and API both moved for summary judgment.

Section 1. The court denied API’s motion for partial summary judgment and granted Tyson’s cross motion for summary judgment on the question of Sherman Act Section 1 per se liability. The court found the evidence did not support the API theory that Tyson conspired with Wayne or Koch to force API out of the Southeast Market. The parallel conduct API identified consisted of decisions by Wayne and Koch to enter into offal (internal organ) purchasing agreements (OPAs) with Tyson, effective in 2019, after expiration of their respective rendering contracts with API. Wayne and Koch supplied Tyson. Evidence about the industry standard length of a raw material supply agreement was inconsistent. A Tyson internal memo could support competing inferences, including an inference that Tyson was lawfully competing and executing a legitimate business strategy.

As for common motive, again, competitors can lawfully expand or grow a business. Wayne and Koch had their own reasons for moving their rendering business from API to Tyson, and they already did business with Tyson in other markets.

As for self-interest, the court found the financial incentives Tyson offered Wayne and Koch cut against the API assertion that they acted against their independent self-interest when they chose to do business with Tyson instead of API.

Interfirm communications API identified did not support collusion. They showed Tyson communicating individually with either Wayne or Koch. The lack of three-way communication was inconsistent with API’s theory of horizontal boycott or “hub-and-spoke” conspiracy.

The court agreed with Tyson that the OPAs were vertical agreements. API argued the OPAs were horizontal, but the court found Tyson was acting as a prospective renderer, not as a competitor to processors Wayne and Koch, when it negotiated the 2017 OPAs. Although Tyson stood in both vertical and horizontal positions relative to Wayne and Koch in other contexts, vertical OPAs were at the heart of the API Section 1 claim.

API also failed to establish a triable issue about the existence of a “hub-and-spoke” conspiracy. Again, the evidence did not support collusion, nor that Wayne and Koch acted in concert as spokes. Communications about Tyson securing a second OPA supplier, in addition to Koch, did not show concerted action. Tyson’s actions were not dependent on securing both Wayne and Koch.

No injury. The court held API lacked standing to litigate its Section 1 rule of reason and Section 2 claims. Without a horizontal group boycott or hub-and-spoke conspiracy, API had no antitrust injury as a matter of law.

API identified their injury as the difference between what they would have fetched in a competitive arms-length rendering plant asset sale and the situation it said resulted in a devalued sale price; lost profits; and anticompetitive harm arising from Tyson “bulldozing” and evidence that it wielded market power to harm rivals and raise prices. The court found the first two contended harms did not flow from unlawful conduct. As for the third, API conceded it was not trying to enforce the claims of other market participants.

The court found the API “bulldozing” argument failed because, as already discussed, the evidence did not support conspiracy or independent action. API was also not an efficient enforcer for markets upstream and downstream in the Southeast Market.

API lacked standing to assert exclusive dealing with respect to the ten-year exclusive Tyson OPAs with Wayne and Koch. API represented it could not compete because it lost about 40 percent of its raw material supply, but again, the court found nothing more than vigorous competition.

API also failed to show predatory pricing or exclusionary intent with respect to its Section 2 claims. There was no evidence that the OPAs involved below cost sales. Tyson was making money with the OPAs. The court found a Tyson fixed fat yield pricing contract term did not show predatory intent. API’s asset sale did show antitrust injury without harm to the market, and its catch-all “monopoly broth” theory about the combined effects of multiple Tyson practices failed for the same reasons.

The Case is No. 2:22-cv-00091-RWS.

Judge: Story, R.

Attorneys: Cynthia G. Burnside (Holland & Knight LLP) for American Proteins, Inc. n/k/a Crossroads Properties A, Inc. Jason D. Evans (Troutman Pepper Hamilton Sanders LLP) for River Valley Ingredients, LLC.

Companies: American Proteins, Inc. n/k/a Crossroads Properties A, Inc.; River Valley Ingredients, LLC

MainStory: TopStory Antitrust GeorgiaNews GCNNews