IN RE PORK ANTITRUST LITIGATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Commercial and Institutional Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs (“CIIPPs” or “Plaintiffs”)
have entered into a Settlement Agreement (the “Settlement”) with Clemens Food
Group, LLC and The Clemens Family Corporation (“Clemens”). 	On June 13, 2025, this
Court entered an Order granting preliminary approval of the proposed Settlement.
(Docket No. 3073). On December 12, 2025, this Court held a hearing on Commercial and
Institutional Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs’ Motion for Final Approval of the Class Action
Settlement with Defendants Clemens Food Group, LLC and The Clemens Family
Corporation.
The Court, having reviewed the motion, its accompanying memorandum, and the
exhibits thereto, the Settlement Agreement, and all papers filed, will grant the motion.
IN RE PORK ANTITRUST LITIGATION
This Document Relates To:
COMMERCIAL AND INSTITUTIONAL
INDIRECT PURCHASER PLAINTIFF ACTION
Civil No. 18-1776 (JRT/JFD)
ORDER GRANTING COMMERCIAL AND
INSTITUTIONAL INDIRECT PURCHASER
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR FINAL
APPROVAL OF THE CLASS ACTION
SETTLEMENT WITH DEFENDANTS
CLEMENS FOOD GROUP, LLC AND THE
CLEMENS FAMILY CORPORATION AND
ENTRY OF FINAL JUDGMENT
CASE 0:18-cv-01776-JRT-JFD Doc. 3254 Filed 12/17/25 Page 1 of 8

2
Among other things, the Preliminary Approval Order authorized the CIIPPs to
disseminate notice of the Settlement, the fairness hearing, and related matters to
potential members of the Settlement Classes. 	Notice was provided to the potential
Settlement Class members pursuant to the notice plan approved by the Court, and, as
the Settlement Classes were notified, the Court held a fairness hearing on December 12,
2025. 	No Settlement Class member objected to or opted out of the Settlement, and
none appeared at the fairness hearing to oppose approval of, or object to, the
Settlement.
Based on CIIPPs’ Motion, oral argument presented at the fairness hearing, and
the complete records and files in this matter, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1. 	Commercial and Institutional Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs’ Motion for
Final Approval of the Settlement with Defendants Clemens Food Group, LLC and The
Clemens Family Corporation [Docket No. 3225] is hereby GRANTED pursuant to Fed. R.
Civ. P. 23(e) because it is fair, reasonable, and adequate to the Settlement Classes.
2. 	The Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this litigation,
including the actions within this litigation, and over the parties to the Settlement
Agreement, including all members of the Settlement Classes, and all Defendants.
3. 	Terms capitalized in this Order and Final Judgment have the same
meanings as those used in the Settlement Agreement.
CASE 0:18-cv-01776-JRT-JFD Doc. 3254 Filed 12/17/25 Page 2 of 8

3
4. 	The Court adopts and incorporates herein all findings made in its
Preliminary Approval Order (Docket No. 3073).
5. 	The Settlement is fair and reasonable and is a fair compromise of the
CIIPPs’ claims. In reaching this conclusion, the Court considered the complexity,
expense, and likely duration of the litigation, the Class’s reaction to the Settlement, and
the result achieved.
6. 	The Settlement Agreement was attained following extensive discovery
and 	litigation. It resulted from vigorous arm’s-length negotiations, which were
undertaken in good faith by counsel with significant experience litigating antitrust class
actions.
7. 	Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, the Court previously
determined that the following classes be certified:
Injunctive Class: All entities that indirectly purchased uncooked pork bacon,
or one or more of the following types of raw pork, whether fresh or frozen:
loins, 	shoulder, 	ribs, 	hams, 	or 	pork 	chops 	from 	defendants 	or 	co-
conspirators for their own use in commercial food preparation in the United
States from June 28, 2014 to June 30, 2018. For this lawsuit, pork excludes
any product that is marketed as organic and/or no antibiotics ever and any
product other than bacon that is marinated, seasoned, flavored, or
breaded, but it includes uncooked and cooked ham water added products.
Damages Class: All entities that indirectly purchased uncooked pork bacon,
or one or more of the following types of raw pork, whether fresh or frozen:
loins, 	shoulder, 	ribs, 	hams, 	or 	pork 	chops 	from 	defendants 	or 	co-
conspirators for their own use in commercial food preparation in the
Repealer Jurisdictions from June 28, 2014 to June 30, 2018. For this lawsuit,
pork excludes any product that is marketed as organic and/or no antibiotics
ever and any product other than bacon that is marinated, seasoned,
CASE 0:18-cv-01776-JRT-JFD Doc. 3254 Filed 12/17/25 Page 3 of 8

4
flavored, or breaded, but it includes uncooked and cooked ham water
added products.
8. 	The Court further finds that the prerequisites to a class action under Rule
23 	are 	satisfied 	for 	settlement 	purposes 	in 	that: 	(a) 	there 	are 	thousands 	of
geographically dispersed class members, making joinder of all members impracticable;
(b) there are questions of law and fact common to the class that predominate over
individual issues; (c) the claims or defenses of the Plaintiffs are typical of the claims or
defenses of the Settlement Classes; (d) the Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect
the interests of the Settlement Classes, and have retained counsel experienced in
antitrust class action litigation who have, and will continue to, adequately represent the
Settlement Classes; (e) common issues of law and fact predominate; and (f) a class
action is superior to individual actions.
9. 	All Settlement Class members are members of the nationwide Injunctive
Class. Only Settlement Class members in the following jurisdictions (“Repealer
Jurisdictions”) are eligible to potentially recover money from the settlement funds
available in the Damages Class: Arkansas, Arizona, California, District of Columbia,
Florida, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi,
Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North
Dakota, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah,
Vermont, West Virginia and/or Wisconsin. The class period for Kansas, Massachusetts,
Mississippi, South Carolina, and Tennessee class members begins June 28, 2015.
CASE 0:18-cv-01776-JRT-JFD Doc. 3254 Filed 12/17/25 Page 4 of 8

5
10. 	Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g), Co-Lead Counsel previously appointed by
the Court are appointed as Class Counsel for the Settlement Classes as they have and
will fairly and competently represent the interests of the Settlement Classes.
11. 	The Escrow Account, into which Clemens has deposited a total 	of
$7,750,000.00 as the settlement amount, plus accrued interest thereon, is approved as
a Qualified Settlement Fund pursuant to Internal Revenue Code Section 468B and the
Treasury Regulations promulgated thereunder.
12. 	This Court hereby dismisses on the merits and with prejudice all Claims in
the CIIPP action against Clemens, with each party to bear its own costs and fees,
including attorneys’ fees, except as provided in the Settlement Agreement.
13. 	The Release in the Settlement Agreement is incorporated herein and the
Releasing Parties shall, by operation of law, be deemed to have released all Clemens
Released Parties from the Released Claims. All entities who are Releasing Parties (as
defined in the Settlement Agreement) or who purport to assert claims on behalf of the
Releasing Parties are hereby and forever barred and enjoined from commencing,
prosecuting, or continuing, against the Clemens Released Parties, in this or any other
jurisdiction, any and all claims, causes of action or lawsuits, which they had, have, or in
the future may have, arising out of or related to any of the Released Claims as defined
in the Settlement Agreement.
CASE 0:18-cv-01776-JRT-JFD Doc. 3254 Filed 12/17/25 Page 5 of 8

6
14. 	The Clemens Released Parties are hereby and forever released and
discharged with respect to any and all claims or causes of action which the Releasing
Parties had, have, or in the future may have, arising out of or related to any of the
Released Claims as defined in the Settlement Agreement.
15. 	The notice given to the Settlement Classes, including individual notice to
all members of the Settlement Classes who could be identified through reasonable
effort, was the most effective and practicable under the circumstances. This notice
provided due and sufficient notice of the proceedings and of the matters set forth
therein, including the proposed settlement, to all persons entitled to such notice, and
this notice fully satisfied the requirements of Rules 23(c)(2) and 23(e)(1) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure and the requirements of due process.
16. 	No members of the Settlement Classes have objected to the Settlement
and no members of the Certified Classes previously requested exclusion from those
classes.
17. 	All members of the Settlement Classes are now subject to and bound by
the provisions of the Settlement Agreement, the Released Claims contained therein,
and this Order with respect to all Released Claims, regardless of whether such
Settlement Class members seek or obtain any distribution from the Settlement Fund.
18. 	Clemens has agreed that it will continue to comply with the federal
antitrust laws.
CASE 0:18-cv-01776-JRT-JFD Doc. 3254 Filed 12/17/25 Page 6 of 8

7
19. 	Without affecting the finality of this Final Judgment in any way, this Court
hereby retains continuing exclusive jurisdiction over: (a) consummation, administration
and implementation of the Settlement Agreements and any allocation or distribution
to Settlement Class members pursuant to further orders of this Court; (b) disposition of
the Settlement Fund; (c) hearing and determining applications by Plaintiffs for attorneys’
fees, costs, expenses, and interest; (d) the actions in this litigation until the Final
Judgment has become effective and each and every act agreed to be performed by the
parties all have been performed pursuant to the Settlement Agreement; (e) hearing
and ruling on any matters relating to any plan of allocation or distribution of proceeds
from the Settlement; (f) the parties to the Settlement Agreement for the purpose of
enforcing and administering the Settlement Agreement and the releases contemplated
by, or executed in connection with the Settlement Agreement; (g) the enforcement of
this Final Judgment; and (h) over any suit, action, proceeding, or dispute arising out of
or relating to the Settlement Agreement or the applicability of the Settlement
Agreement, that cannot be resolved by negotiation and agreement.
20. 	Clemens 	has 	served 	upon 	the 	appropriate 	state 	officials 	and 	the
appropriate federal official notice under the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1715
(“CAFA”).
21. 	The Court finds, pursuant to Rules 54(a) and (b) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure, that final judgment should be entered and further finds that there is no
CASE 0:18-cv-01776-JRT-JFD Doc. 3254 Filed 12/17/25 Page 7 of 8

8
just reason for delay in the entry of final judgment as to the parties to the Settlement
Agreement. Accordingly, the Clerk is hereby directed to enter this Final Judgment
forthwith.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
DATED: December 16, 2025
at Minneapolis, Minnesota. 	JOHN R. TUNHEIM
United States District Judge
CASE 0:18-cv-01776-JRT-JFD Doc. 3254 Filed 12/17/25 Page 8 of 8