A PYMNTS Company

Clemens Food Group Reaches $13.5 Million Settlement in Pork Price-Fixing Suit

By  |  May 20, 2025

Clemens Food Group has agreed to pay $13.5 million as part of a settlement with consumer indirect purchaser plaintiffs. The motion for preliminary approval was filed on May 15 and marks the fifth such agreement in the ongoing multidistrict case.

    Get the Full Story

    Complete the form to unlock this article and enjoy unlimited free access to all PYMNTS content — no additional logins required.

    yesSubscribe to our daily newsletter, PYMNTS Today.

    By completing this form, you agree to receive marketing communications from PYMNTS and to the sharing of your information with our sponsor, if applicable, in accordance with our Privacy Policy and Terms and Conditions.

    The settlement would bring the total recovery for the consumer plaintiffs to around $123 million, according to a statement filed in court. Clemens also committed to supporting the plaintiffs by permitting the admission of up to 50 documents during trial proceedings, per the same court statement.

    This legal action, initiated in 2019, accuses several major pork producers of conspiring to inflate pork prices through coordinated actions and the sharing of sensitive data via the third-party analytics firm Agri Stats. Companies named in the lawsuit include Tyson Foods, JBS, Smithfield Foods, Hormel Foods, Seaboard Foods, Triumph Foods, and Clemens Food Group.

    According to a statement in the complaint, plaintiffs allege that these firms used tactics such as herd culling, data sharing through Agri Stats, and export strategies to manipulate pork supply and pricing as far back as 2009.

    The Clemens settlement adds to earlier agreements reached with JBS ($20 million), Smithfield Foods ($75 million), Hormel Foods ($4.5 million), and Seaboard Foods ($10 million).

    Related: Pork Giants Push to Overturn Price-Fixing Suit Citing Clerk’s Alleged Conflicts

    Meanwhile, the litigation took a contentious turn in late April when several defendants—Tyson, Smithfield, Clemens, Seaboard, Triumph, and Agri Stats—filed a motion seeking the recusal of U.S. District Judge John Tunheim from the case. The motion challenges his recent rulings on Daubert and summary judgment issues, citing concerns over a law clerk’s alleged conflicts of interest.

    According to the recusal motion, the clerk in question previously worked for three firms engaged in antitrust lawsuits against protein producers involving Agri Stats, had an outstanding employment offer from a plaintiff law firm involved in the case, and made a social media post referencing the litigation. The motion also claims the clerk “publicly embraced” plaintiffs’ counsel in court after arguments.

    “The bell cannot be unrung,” defendants wrote, arguing that the judge’s continued involvement could undermine fairness in a case that has substantial implications for both consumers and the meatpacking industry.

    Source: Super Market Perimeter