IN RE PORK ANTITRUST LITIGATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Commercial and Institutional Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs (“CIIPPs”)1 entered into
a Settlement Agreement (the “Settlement”) with Defendants Tyson Foods, Inc., Tyson
Fresh 	Meats, 	Inc., 	and 	Tyson 	Prepared 	Foods, 	Inc. 	(collectively, 	“Tyson”) 	for
$48,000,000.00. 	CIIPPs now move for an award of attorneys’ fees, reimbursement of
litigation expenses, and class representative services awards. 	(Mot., Sept. 21, 2026,
Docket No. 3483.)
The Court, having reviewed the CIIPPs’ motion, the accompanying memorandum,
and the declarations and exhibits thereto, and after hearing the arguments of counsel,
will grant the CIIPPs’ motion.
1 The current CIIPP representative plaintiffs are Sandee’s Bakery; Francis T. Enterprises
d/b/a Erbert & Gerbert’s; Joe Lopez, d/b/a Joe’s Steak and Leaf; Longhorn’s Steakhouse; The
Grady Corporation; Mcmjoynt LLC d/b/a The Breakfast Joynt; Edley’s Restaurant Group, LLC; Basil
Mt. Pleasant, LLC; Basil Charlotte, Inc.; Farah’s Courtyard Deli, Inc.; and Tri-Ten LLC.
IN RE PORK ANTITRUST LITIGATION
This Document Relates To:
COMMERCIAL AND INSTITUTIONAL
INDIRECT PURCHASER PLAINTIFF ACTION
Civil No. 18-1776 (JRT/JFD)
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
GRANTING COMMERCIAL AND
INSTITUTIONAL INDIRECT PURCHASER
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR AN AWARD
OF ATTORNEYS’ FEES, REIMBURSEMENT
OF LITIGATION EXPENSES, AND CLASS
REPRESENTATIVE SERVICE AWARDS
CASE 0:18-cv-01776-JRT-JFD Doc. 3503 Filed 10/08/26 Page 1 of 12

-2-
DISCUSSION
The Court has considered the relevant case law and authority and finds that awards
of attorneys’ fees and reimbursement of expenses to the CIIPPs and their counsel are
appropriate under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(h) and 54(d)(2). 	Notice of the
request for fees and reimbursement of expenses was provided to the potential class
members via direct and published notice and a settlement website that identified and
provided copies of relevant documents and pleadings.
The Court has considered the reaction of the class members to this fee and
reimbursement request. 	One class member has objected to or commented on the
request.2
The Court will grant the CIIPPs’ request for reimbursement of past litigation
expenses in the amount of $22,051.20 from the Settlement fund. “It is well established
that counsel who create a common fund like the one at issue are entitled to the
reimbursement of litigation costs and expenses, which include such things as expert
witness costs, mediation costs, computerized research, court reports, travel expenses,
and copy, telephone, and facsimile expenses.” 	Krueger v. Ameriprise Fin., Inc., Civ. No.
11-2781, 2015 WL 4246879, at *3 (D. Minn. July 13, 2015).
2 The Court has reviewed the objection, received by mail on October 1, 2026, requesting
that the Court decreased the amount awarded in attorneys’ fees. (Docket No. 3497.) The Court
will grant the CIIPPs’ award of attorneys’ fees to counsel without reduction because it concludes
that the requested fee is fair for the reasons further explained below.
CASE 0:18-cv-01776-JRT-JFD Doc. 3503 Filed 10/08/26 Page 2 of 12

-3-
The Court concludes that the past litigation expenses incurred by counsel for the
CIIPPs were reasonable and necessary and were of the type normally awarded in class
action litigation. 	See, e.g., Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(h); Khoday v. Symantec Corp., Civ. No. 11-
180, 2016 WL 1637039, at *12 (D. Minn. Apr. 5, 2016) (“Courts generally allow plaintiffs’
counsel in a class action to be reimbursed for costs and expenses out of the settlement
fund, so long as those costs and expenses are reasonable and relevant to the litigation.”);
In re Zurn Pex Plumbing Prod. Liab. Litig., MDL No. 08-1958, 2013 WL 716460, at *5 (D.
Minn. Feb. 27, 2013); Yarrington v. Solvay Pharm., Inc., 697 F. Supp. 2d 1057, 1067 (D.
Minn. 2010). The past litigation expenses incurred in the prosecution of this case shall be
reimbursed from the Settlement fund. When claim administration occurs, the cost of the
claims administration may also be paid from the Settlement fund.
The Court will award fees to counsel for the CIIPPs using the percentage-of-the-
fund approach. “A routine calculation of fees involves the common-fund doctrine, which
is based on a percentage of the common fund recovered.” In re Xcel Energy, Inc., Sec.,
Derivative & “ERISA” Litig., 364 F. Supp. 2d 980, 991 (D. Minn. 2005) (citing Blum v.
Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 900 n.16 (1984)); see also Boeing Co. v. Van Gemert, 444 U.S. 472,
478 (1980) (“[A] litigant or a lawyer who recovers a common fund for the benefit of
persons other than himself or his client is entitled to a reasonable attorney’s fee from the
fund as a whole.” (citations omitted)); In re U.S. Bancorp Litig., 291 F.3d 1035, 1038 (8th
Cir. 2002)). “In the Eighth Circuit, use of a percentage method of awarding attorney fees
CASE 0:18-cv-01776-JRT-JFD Doc. 3503 Filed 10/08/26 Page 3 of 12

-4-
in a common-fund case is not only approved, but also ‘well established.’” In re Xcel, 364
F. Supp. 2d at 991 (quoting Petrovic v. Amoco Oil Co., 200 F.3d 1140, 1157 (8 th Cir. 1999);
see also Khoday, 2016 WL 1637039, at *8-9.
Counsel for the CIIPPs request a fee award of one-third of the settlement funds
remaining after past litigation expenses and representative service awards have been
deducted. 	The requested fee, 	which totals approximately 33.23 percent of 	the
$48,000,000.00 Settlement fund, is well within the range allowed by courts in this district.
When using the percentage-of-the-fund approach, the Court considers seven
factors: (1) the benefit conferred on the class; (2) the risk to which plaintiffs’ counsel was
exposed; (3) the difficulty and novelty of the legal and factual issues of the case; (4) the
skill of the lawyers, both plaintiffs’ and defendants’; (5) the time and labor involved;
(6) the reaction of the class; and (7) the comparison between the requested attorney fee
percentage and percentages awarded in similar cases. Khoday, 2016 WL 1637039, at *9;
In re Xcel, 364 F. Supp. 2d at 993; Yarrington, 697 F. Supp. 2d at 1062. When applied here,
these factors indicate that the requested fee is fair.
Counsel Secured Valuable Benefits for CIIPPs. 	The $48,000,000.00 Settlement
Fund is coupled with non-monetary relief. None of the money will revert to Tyson, or to
a cy pres designee, and the terms of the settlement provide significant value to the CIIPPs.
See, e.g., In re Packaged Ice Antitrust Litig., MDL No. 08-1952, 2010 WL 3070161, at *6
(E.D. Mich. Aug. 2, 2010); In re Pressure Sensitive Labelstock Antitrust Litig., 584 F. Supp.
CASE 0:18-cv-01776-JRT-JFD Doc. 3503 Filed 10/08/26 Page 4 of 12

-5-
2d 697, 702 (M.D. Pa. 2008). Fee awards in antitrust actions also provide a public benefit.
There is a “need in making fee awards to encourage attorneys to bring class actions to
vindicate public policy (e.g., the antitrust laws) as well as the specific rights of private
individuals.” In re Folding Carton Antitrust Litig., 84 F.R.D. 245, 260 (N.D. Ill. 1979); In re
Cardizem CD Antitrust Litig., 218 F.R.D. 508, 534 (E.D. Mich. 2003) (“Society also benefits
from the prosecution and settlement of private antitrust litigation.”) 	Society benefits
when those who have violated laws fostering fair competition and honest pricing are
required to reimburse affected consumers in civil proceedings. 	Vendo v. Lektro-Vend
Corp., 433 U.S. 623, 635 (1977) (“[T]here exists a strong national interest in antitrust
enforcement.”); Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Visa U.S.A., Inc., 396 F.3d 96, 122 (2d Cir. 2005)
(“[I]t is especially important to provide appropriate incentives to attorneys pursuing
antitrust actions because public policy relies on private sector enforcement of the
antitrust laws.”).
Plaintiffs’ Counsel Was Exposed to Risk. 	Counsel for the CIIPPs assumed
considerable risk by pursuing this case on a contingent basis, advancing the costs of the
litigation, and preparing for trial without a guaranteed recovery. 	Defendants have
vigorously defended the claims, and antitrust litigation is inherently expensive and
complex. 	Counsel for the CIIPPs were exposed to recovering nothing in this litigation.
“[W]ithin the set of colorable legal claims, a higher risk of loss does argue for a higher
fee.” 	In re Trans Union Corp. Privacy Litig., 629 F. 3d 741, 746 (7 th Cir. 2011). The risk
CASE 0:18-cv-01776-JRT-JFD Doc. 3503 Filed 10/08/26 Page 5 of 12

-6-
undertaken by counsel for the CIIPPs supports the requested fee award. 	See Khoday,
2016 WL 1637039, at *9; In re Xcel, 364 F. Supp. 2d at 994; Yarrington, 697 F. Supp. 2d at
1062–63.
The Difficulty and Novelty of the Legal and Factual Issues of the Case. Antitrust
class actions are inherently complex. In re Linerboard Antitrust Litig., 292 F. Supp. 2d 631,
639 (E.D. Pa. 2003) (“An antitrust class action is arguably the most complex action to
prosecute. The legal and factual issues involved are always numerous and uncertain in
outcome.” (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)). This litigation presented
challenging legal and factual issues and this factor also supports the fee requested.
Skill and Experience of Counsel. Counsel for the CIIPPs and Tyson are experienced
and skilled antitrust counsel. This factor also supports the requested fee. See Khoday,
2016 WL 1637039, at *10; In re Xcel, 364 F. Supp. 2d at 995–96; Yarrington, 697 F. Supp.
2d at 1063; In re Packaged Ice Antitrust Litig., 2011 WL 6209188, at *19.
The Time and Labor Involved. Counsel working on behalf of the CIIPPs invested
tens of thousands of hours to achieve the Settlement and the other CIIPPs settlements.
The litigation has already lasted eight years and has and will continue to require significant
time and labor. This factor supports the requested fee.
The Reaction of the Class. 	Only one class member objected to the request for
awards of fees or expenses.
CASE 0:18-cv-01776-JRT-JFD Doc. 3503 Filed 10/08/26 Page 6 of 12

-7-
Comparison with Percentages Awarded in Similar Cases. 	Courts in this district
routinely approve attorneys’ fees in class actions of at least one-third of the common fund
created for the settlement class. See e.g., Khoday, 2016 WL 1637039, at *11; Yarrington,
697 F. Supp. 2d at 1064 (noting that awards between 25 and 36 percent of a common
fund are common and awards of between 30 and 36 percent have also been approved );
In re U.S. Bancorp, 291 F.3d at 1038 (affirming a fee award representing 36 percent of the
settlement fund as reasonable); In re Xcel, 364 F. Supp. 2d at 998–99 (collecting cases
routinely approving fee awards of 33 percent); Carlson v. C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc.,
Civ. No. 02-3780, 2006 WL 2671105, at *8 (D. Minn. Sept. 18, 2006) (approving a fee
award representing 35.5 percent of the settlement fund).
The Eighth Circuit and other federal courts have approved awards exceeding one-
third of the settlement funds created by counsel representing the settlement class. See,
e.g., In re U.S. Bancorp, 291 F.3d at 1038 (affirming a fee of 36 percent); In re Vitamins
Antitrust Litig., 2001 WL 34312839, at *10 (D.D.C. 2001) (awarding one third of $359
million antitrust recovery, which is “within the fifteen to forty-five percent range
established in other cases”); Waters v. Intern. Precious Metals Corp., 190 F.3d 1291, 1292-
94 (11 th Cir. 1999) (affirming a fee of one-third of the settlement fund); In re Ampicillin
Antitrust Litig., 526 F. Supp. 494, 498 (D.D.C. 1981) (awarding fee of 45 percent); In re
Combustion, Inc., 968 F. Supp. 1116, 1133, 1142 (W.D. La. 1997) (awarding fee of 36 per
CASE 0:18-cv-01776-JRT-JFD Doc. 3503 Filed 10/08/26 Page 7 of 12

-8-
cent and noting that “[u]sually 50 percent of the fund is the upper limit on a reasonable
fee award from a common fund”).
The Court has carefully analyzed the Settlement and the factors considered by
courts within the Eighth Circuit and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and concludes that
the factors are met and justify a fee award to counsel for the CIIPPs. 	The Settlement
provides substantial cash benefits and additional non-monetary benefits from Tyson.
CIIPPs’ counsel has worked on a contingent basis, and the results of this litigation have
never been certain. The legal and factual issues are complicated, and the parties have
zealously asserted their claims and defenses. 	Given the length and tenacity of this
litigation and the involvement of a private mediator, the Court is satisfied that the
Settlement 	was 	the 	result 	of 	arms’ 	length 	negotiations 	between 	informed 	and
experienced counsel who used an experienced mediator. 	The requested fees are well
within the range allowed by courts in this district.
Although 	not 	required, 	courts 	may 	apply 	a 	lodestar 	“cross-check” 	on 	the
reasonableness of the fee calculated as a percentage of the fund. Keil v. Lopez, 862 F.3d
685, 701 (8 th Cir. 2017). A cross-check of the lodestar incurred by counsel for the CIIPPs
indicates that the fees requested constitute fair and reasonable compensation for the
risks assumed, the work done, and the benefits achieved for the members of the class.
Using the lodestar cross-check methodology and reviewing the total fees awarded
with the lodestar generated on these cases from inception to July 31, 2026, the requested
CASE 0:18-cv-01776-JRT-JFD Doc. 3503 Filed 10/08/26 Page 8 of 12

-9-
fee results in a lodestar multiplier of 1.38 which is well within the range of reasonable
multipliers awarded in similar contingent fee cases. (See Decl. of Shawn M. Raiter ¶ 30,
Sept. 21, 2026, Docket No. 3487.) This multiplier is reasonable considering the complexity
of this litigation, the result achieved for the class members, the risks assumed by counsel
for the CIIPPs, and the work remaining to be done on the case and for which fees may or
may not be available. 	See, e.g., Khoday, 2016 WL 1637039, at *11 (indicating that
multipliers typically range “from two to five”); In re St. Paul Travelers Sec. Litig., Civ. No.
14-3801, 2006 WL 1116118, at *1 (D. Minn. Apr. 25, 2006) (approving a settlement with
a lodestar multiplier of 3.9).
The Court will grant an award of attorneys’ fees to counsel for the CIIPPs in the
amount of one-third of the net settlement funds available after the deduction of: (1) past
litigation expenses discussed above, and (2) representative service awards discussed
below. These attorneys’ fees, totaling $15,983,482.93 shall be paid from the Settlement
fund.
Co-Lead Counsel for the CIIPPs will be authorized to allocate the attorneys’ fees
awarded herein among counsel who performed work on behalf of the CIIPPs in
accordance with Co-Lead Counsel’s assessment of each firm or attorney’s contribution to
the prosecution of this litigation.
The Court will also grant the requested $2,500.00 service awards to each of the
named representatives. Courts routinely grant service awards for named plaintiffs. See,
CASE 0:18-cv-01776-JRT-JFD Doc. 3503 Filed 10/08/26 Page 9 of 12

-10-
e.g., Yarrington, 697 F. Supp. 2d at 1068 (upholding service awards and recognizing that
“unlike unnamed Class Members who will enjoy the benefits of the Settlement without
taking on any significant role, the Named Plaintiffs [make] significant efforts on behalf of
the Settlement Class and [participate] actively in the litigation”); Zillhaver v. UnitedHealth
Group, Inc., 646 F. Supp. 2d 1075, 1085 (D. Minn. 2009) (awarding $15,000 service
awards); see also In re Xcel, 364 F. Supp. 2d at 1000 (awarding $100,000 to be distributed
among the eight lead plaintiffs).
The representative plaintiffs took action to benefit the interests of the CIIPPs,
devoted their own time and effort, and have assisted counsel in achieving this settlement.
See Zillhaver, 646 F. Supp. 2d at 1085 (quoting Koenig v. U.S. Bank, 291 F.3d 1035, 1038
(8th Cir. 2002)); In re CenturyLink Sales Prac. & Sec. Litig., MDL No. 17-2795, 2020 WL
7133805, at *13 (D. Minn. Dec. 4, 2020). Such awards also compensate representative
plaintiffs who “participated and willingly took on the responsibility of prosecuting the
case and publicly lending their names to this lawsuit, opening themselves up to scrutiny
and attention from both the public and media.” In re CenturyLink, 2020 WL 7133805, at
*13. The requested $2,500.00 award is reasonable when compared to awards issued by
courts in this District. 	Zillhaver, 646 F. Supp. 2d at 1085 (awarding two lead plaintiffs
$15,000 each from a settlement fund of $17 million); In re Xcel, 364 F. Supp. 2d at 1000
(awarding $100,000 to be split between eight lead plaintiffs); Khoday, 2016 WL 1637039,
at *12 (awarding $10,000 service awards).
CASE 0:18-cv-01776-JRT-JFD Doc. 3503 Filed 10/08/26 Page 10 of 12

-11-
Co-Lead Counsel for the CIIPPs will be authorized to pay from the Settlement fund
$2,500.00 to each of these entities: Sandee’s Bakery; Francis T. Enterprises d/b/a Erbert
& Gerbert’s; Joe Lopez, d/b/a Joe’s Steak and Leaf; Longhorn’s Steakhouse; The Grady
Corporation; Mcmjoynt LLC d/b/a The Breakfast Joynt; Edley’s Restaurant Group, LLC;
Basil Mt. Pleasant, LLC; Basil Charlotte, Inc.; Farah’s Courtyard Deli, Inc.; and Tri-Ten LLC.
ORDER
Based on the foregoing, and all the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS
HEREBY ORDERED that the Commercial and Institutional Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs’
Motion for an Award of Attorneys’ Fees, Reimbursement of Litigation Expenses, and Class
Representation Service Awards (Docket No. [3483]) is GRANTED, as follows:
1. 	The Court GRANTS the CIIPPs’ request for reimbursement of past litigation
expenses in the amount of $22,051.20 from the Settlement fund. When claim
administration occurs, the cost of the claims administration may also be paid
from the Settlement fund.
2. 	The Court GRANTS an award of attorneys’ fees to counsel for the CIIPPs in the
amount of one-third of the net settlement funds available after the deduction
of: (1) past litigation expenses, and (2) representative service awards. These
attorneys’ fees, totaling $15,983,482.93 shall be paid from the Settlement
fund.
a. 	Co-Lead Counsel for the CIIPPs are authorized to allocate the attorneys’
fees awarded herein among counsel who performed work on behalf of
CASE 0:18-cv-01776-JRT-JFD Doc. 3503 Filed 10/08/26 Page 11 of 12

-12-
the CIIPPs in accordance with Co-Lead Counsel’s assessment of each firm
or attorney’s contribution to the prosecution of this litigation.
3. 	The Court GRANTS the requested $2,500.00 service awards to each of the
named representatives.
a. 	Co-Lead 	Counsel 	for 	the 	CIIPPs 	are 	authorized 	to 	pay 	from 	the
Settlement fund $2,500.00 to each of these entities: Sandee’s Bakery;
Francis T. Enterprises d/b/a Erbert & Gerbert’s; Joe Lopez, d/b/a Joe’s
Steak 	and 	Leaf; 	Longhorn’s 	Steakhouse; 	The 	Grady 	Corporation;
Mcmjoynt LLC d/b/a The Breakfast Joynt; Edley’s Restaurant Group, LLC;
Basil Mt. Pleasant, LLC; Basil Charlotte, Inc.; Farah’s Courtyard Deli, Inc.;
and Tri-Ten LLC.
DATED: October 8, 2026 	_____/s/ John R. Tunheim_____
at Minneapolis, Minnesota. 	JOHN R. TUNHEIM
United States District Judge
CASE 0:18-cv-01776-JRT-JFD Doc. 3503 Filed 10/08/26 Page 12 of 12