IN RE PORK ANTITRUST LITIGATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
On March 31, 2026, the Consumer Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs (“Consumer IPPs”)
filed a motion seeking the Court’s preliminary approval of their class action settlement
with Defendants Triumph Foods, LLC and Agri Stats, Inc. (Motion for Preliminary Approval
of Class Action Settlements Between Consumer Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs and Triumph
Foods, LLC and Agri Stats, Inc. (the “Motion”), March 31, 2026, Docket No. 3339.)
Having carefully reviewed the Motion, the settlement agreements (Decl. of Shana
E. Scarlett, Exs. A–B (“Settlement Agreements”), March 31, 2026, Docket No. 3342), and
the accompanying memorandum and documents, the Court will grant the Motion.
ORDER
Based on the foregoing, and all the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS
HEREBY ORDERED that The Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlements
IN RE PORK ANTITRUST LITIGATION
This Document Relates To:
ALL CONSUMER INDIRECT PURCHASER
ACTIONS
Civil No. 18-1776 (JRT/JFD)
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF
CONSUMER INDIRECT PURCHASER
PLAINTIFFS’ CLASS ACTION
SETTLEMENTS WITH TRIUMPH FOODS,
LLC AND AGRI STATS, INC
CASE 0:18-cv-01776-JRT-JFD Doc. 3389 Filed 05/05/26 Page 1 of 4

-2-
Between Consumer Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs and Triumph Foods, LLC and Agri Stats,
Inc. (Docket No. [3339]) is GRANTED as follows:
1. 	This Court has jurisdiction over this action and each of the parties to the
Settlement Agreements.
2. 	The proposed Settlement Agreements, which were arrived at by arm’s-length
negotiations by highly experienced counsel, fall within the range of possible
approval 	and 	are 	hereby 	preliminarily 	approved, 	subject 	to 	further
consideration at the Court’s Fairness Hearing.
3. 	The Court certifies a Settlement Class defined as:
All persons and entities who indirectly purchased raw pork
bacon, or one or more of the following types of raw pork,
whether fresh or frozen: bellies, loins, shoulder, ribs or pork
chops 	from 	defendants 	or 	co-conspirators 	for 	personal
consumption in the Repealer Jurisdictions1 from June 28, 2014
to June 30, 2018. For this lawsuit, pork excludes any product
that is marketed as organic, no-antibiotics ever (NAE) and any
product 	other 	than 	bacon 	that 	is 	marinated, 	seasoned,
flavored, or breaded.2
1 The Consumer IPPs’ “Repealer Jurisdictions” are Arizona, California, District of Columbia,
Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada,
New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Rhode Island, South
Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, and West Virginia. The class period for Kansas, Tennessee, and South
Carolina class members begins June 28, 2015.
2 Excluded from the Class are Defendants, the officers, directors or employees of any
Defendant; any entity in which any Defendant has a controlling interest; and any affiliate, legal
representative, heir or assign of any Defendant; any federal, state, or local governmental entities,
any judicial officer presiding over this action and the members of his/her immediate family and
judicial staff, any juror assigned to this action; and any coconspirator identified in this action.
CASE 0:18-cv-01776-JRT-JFD Doc. 3389 Filed 05/05/26 Page 2 of 4

-3-
4. 	Provisional certification of the Settlement Class is warranted for settlement
purposes in light of the Settlement Agreements because: (a) the Settlement
Class members are so numerous that joinder is impracticable; (b) the Consumer
IPPs’ claims present common issues and are typical of the claims of the
Settlement Class; (c) the Consumer IPP named class representatives and
Settlement Class Counsel (defined below) will fairly and adequately represent
the Settlement Class; and (d) common issues predominate over any individual
issues affecting the members of the Settlement Class.
5. 	The named representative Consumer IPPs’ interests are aligned with the
interests of all other members of the Settlement Class, and settlement of this
action on a class basis is superior to other means of resolving the matter.
6. 	The 	Settlement 	Agreements 	are 	preliminarily 	determined 	to 	be 	fair,
reasonable, adequate, and in the best interests of the Settlement Class. 	No
obvious reasons to doubt the fairness of the Settlement Agreements have been
raised. 	A 	reasonable 	basis 	exists 	for 	presuming 	that 	the 	Settlement
Agreements and their terms satisfy the requirements of Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure 23(a), 23(b)(3), 23(c)(2), and 23(e) and due process.
7. 	The law firms of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP and Gustafson Gluek PLLC
are appointed as Co-Lead Counsel for the Settlement Class.
CASE 0:18-cv-01776-JRT-JFD Doc. 3389 Filed 05/05/26 Page 3 of 4

-4-
8. 	Each Consumer IPP class representative named in the live complaint in the
above case will serve as a class representative on behalf of the Settlement
Class. All claims will be paid directly to class members.
9. 	Formal notice of the Settlement Agreements to the Class should be deferred.
Deferring formal notice is likely to create efficiencies and cost savings for the
Class, resulting in more money from settlements being distributed to Class
members.
10. 	Plaintiffs are directed to propose a detailed notice plan in a subsequent motion
filed at a point reasonable calculated to maximize the funds available for
distribution to the Class.
11. 	The Action with respect to the Consumer IPPs’ claims is stayed as to the
Released Parties (as that term is defined in the Settlement Agreements) except
as necessary to effectuate the Settlements.
DATED: May 5, 2026
at Minneapolis, Minnesota. 	JOHN R. TUNHEIM
United States District Judge
CASE 0:18-cv-01776-JRT-JFD Doc. 3389 Filed 05/05/26 Page 4 of 4