In re Beef Industry Antitrust Litigation, 248.

• Decision Date: 07 June 1977
• Docket Number: No. 248.,248.
• Parties: In re BEEF INDUSTRY ANTITRUST LITIGATION. Meat Price Investigators Association et al. v. Iowa Beef Processors, Inc., et al., S. D. Iowa, Civil Action No. 76-252-2
• Court: Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation

432 F. Supp. 211

In re BEEF INDUSTRY ANTITRUST LITIGATION.

Meat Price Investigators Association et al. v. Iowa Beef Processors, Inc., et al., S. D. Iowa, Civil Action No. 76-252-2

No. 248.

Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation.

June 7, 1977.

Before JOHN MINOR WISDOM, Chairman, and EDWARD WEINFELD, EDWIN A. ROBSON, WILLIAM H. BECKER, JOSEPH S. LORD, III, STANLEY A. WEIGEL^*, and ANDREW A. CAFFREY, Judges of the Panel.

OPINION AND ORDER

PER CURIAM.

On September 2, 1976, the Panel, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, transferred several actions in this litigation to the Northern District of Texas and, with the consent of that court, assigned them to the Honorable William M. Taylor, Jr. for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings with related actions already pending there. In re Beef Industry Antitrust Litigation, 419 F.Supp. 720 Jud.Pan.Mult.Lit. (1976). The plaintiffs in the thirteen actions in the transferee district (the supermarket actions) are the Meat Price Investigators Association (MPIA) and several individuals and companies engaged in the production and feeding of beef cattle. The defendants are several major supermarket chains; the National Provisioner, Inc., which is a commercial wholesale meat price reporting service; and the National Association of Food Chains, which is a national trade association for food retailers. Plaintiffs in the supermarket actions allege that the defendants have illegally conspired to depress the wholesale price of beef and to raise the price of beef sold at retail. This scheme, plaintiffs claim, is accomplished at least in part through a system of price leadership whereby certain defendants establish a bidding price which the other defendants then follow. Prices are allegedly agreed upon at meetings of the National Association of Food Chains and furthered through a publication of the National Provisioner called the "Yellow Sheet," which is a reporter of wholesale meat prices.

Subsequent to the Panel's original hearing in this litigation, the above-captioned action (the packer action) was filed in the Southern District of Iowa by parties which are also plaintiffs in one of the actions in the transferee district. The four defendants in this new action are meat packers whose principal activity is the purchase and slaughter of fat cattle, and the purchase, processing, packing and selling at wholesale of carcass beef, beef primal cuts, and beef subprimal cuts. None of these four defendants is a party to any of the actions in the transferee district. Plaintiffs in the packer action allege that the defendants have violated Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act by conspiring to restrain trade in the fat cattle industry through a variety of practices, which include the following: manipulating the carcass, primal and subprimal prices of beef reported in the "Yellow Sheet" and using those prices illegally to depress prices paid for live cattle; quoting substantially identical bids for live cattle; exchanging market information; dividing territories; eliminating competition; purchasing beef from each other to fix the price of beef; warehousing beef to reduce the price of live cattle; and gaining inside information about buying requirements from major buyers for the ultimate purpose of depressing the price of live cattle. The large supermarket chains allegedly purchase most of their beef directly from packers.

Since the packer action appeared to share questions of fact with the previously transferred supermarket actions, the Panel ordered the parties to show cause why the packer action should not be transferred to the Northern District of Texas pursuant to section 1407 for inclusion in the coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.¹ The National Provisioner favors transfer. Plaintiffs and defendants in the packer action and plaintiffs in some of the supermarket actions oppose transfer.

We...