Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, ANTITRUST—N.D. Ill.: Attorney fees and class representative service awards set in boiler chicken litigation, (May 26, 2026)

By Donielle Tigay Stutland, J.D.

The court also calculated appropriate objector’s fees given their success in increasing the portion of the settlement fund that will be distributed to the Class.

The federal district court in Chicago, Illinois made determinations regarding attorney fees for the counsel for the End-User indirect purchaser class in the Broiler Chicken Antitrust litigation. The court granted the Counsel for the End-Users’ motion in part and denied it in part. The court determined that the End-User Class Counsel was to entitled to receive a flat 26.6% of the net common fund for all settlements, including an additional settlement amount. The court also removed counsel’s electronic research costs from the costs awarded and the court determined appropriate objector’s fees given their success in increasing the portion of the settlement fund that will be distributed to the Class (In re Broiler Chicken Antitrust Litigation, No. 1:16-cv-08637 (N.D. Ill. May 21, 2026)).

Background. The broiler chicken industry in the United States is large, complex, and dominated by vertically-integrated corporations. The oligopolistic market dominators process the chickens at various stages of the production and marketing process in their own facilities and/or contract out the work to other entities, including small family farms. The industry's annual consumer sales have been estimated to handily exceed $120 billion.

Antitrust lawsuits against the major broiler chicken producers have multiplied from a lawsuit filed in the Northern District of Illinois in 2016; these lawsuits were consolidated for multidistrict litigation. During the discovery phase, it became apparent that the DOJ Antitrust Division was investigating the broiler chicken industry; the DOJ investigation would ultimately result in criminal indictments, convictions, and prison sentences.

As the class action litigation progressed, three plaintiff classes were identified: (1) direct purchasers; (2) commercial and institutional indirect purchasers; and (3) consumer end-user indirect purchasers. A settlement by the end-user indirect purchaser class was approved, and fees for co-lead counsel were then awarded by the court. A class member (Andren) dissatisfied with the counsel fee award appealed to the Seventh Circuit. On appeal, the appellate court found flaws in the trial court's methodology, and remanded the case for a recalculation of the counsel fee award. The trial court recalculated its fee award. Certain end-users objected and appealed once again to the Seventh Circuit. After considering the objections, the Court awarded Class Counsel one-third of the settlement common fund.

On appeal, the Seventh Circuit vacated the award with instructions to provide “greater explanation and consideration of [certain] information.” The Seventh Circuit found that this district court had improperly considered “a sampling of ex post awards” that was “skewed” and not “a representative sample.” Ultimately, the Seventh Circuit held that “class counsel are entitled to 26.6% of the net common fund,” and remanded the case “for further proceedings.”

Attorney Fees. On remand, the district court followed the Seventh Circuit’s determination of a flat 26.6% percentage for class counsel. The objectors conceded that Class Counsel is entitled to an attorney fee award of 26.6% of the “first round of settlements” totaling $181 million, which is an award of $45,805,200. However, at issue was whether an attorney fee calculation should be awarded from the “further settlements” totaling $22.35 million. Having included the Interest Rate Swaps percentage in its calculation, the Seventh Circuit expressly and directly held that “class counsel are entitled to 26.6% of the net common fund,” without reference to or reliance on the declining fee scale employed by the court in Interest Rate Swaps. As such, the court found that class counsel would was entitled to a flat 26.6% of the net common fund for all settlements (both the first-round $181 million and the additional $22.35 million). After adjusting for non-reimbursable research costs, the net settlement fund is $184,622,201. Class Counsel were awarded $49,109,505.47 in fees plus $1,179,096.56 in interest (plus 26.6% of any additional interest that has since accrued).

Expenses. The court also determined that counsel’s electronic legal research costs are not separately recoverable under Montgomery v. Aetna Plywood. After subtracting those costs, the court awarded Class Counsel $9,877,798.48 in litigation expenses and claims administration costs.

Objector awards. The court also granted the objectors awards for their success in increasing the portion of the settlement fund that will be distributed to the Class. Objector Huang was awarded $2,000 for successfully arguing that research costs should be excluded from the net fund before calculating fees. Objector Andren, whose objection produced the larger benefit by enforcing the 26.6% cap instead of one-third, was awarded $837,035.62 in attorneys’ fees and $3,795.20 in costs. The court calculated the benefit conferred to the class as approximately $12.43 million and awarded Andren roughly 6.733% of that saved amount (a figure that also fell comfortably within the lodestar cross-check range). The court also provided each End-User Class Representative with a $2,000 award. The court rejected Objector Andren’s argument that his award should be taken out of Class Counsel’s fee rather than the common fund.

The Case is No. 1:16-cv-08637.

Judge: Durkin, T.

Attorneys: Brian D. Clark (Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P.) for Maplevale Farms, Inc. Serena Georgette Rabie (Armstrong Teasdale LLP) for Koch Foods, Inc., JCG Foods of Alabama, LLC and JCG Foods of Georgia, LLC.

Companies: Maplevale Farms, Inc.; Koch Foods, Inc.; JCG Foods of Alabama, LLC; JCG Foods of Georgia, LLC

Cases: Antitrust IllinoisNews