JBS USA and direct purchaser plaintiffs named in a pork price-fixing lawsuit filed a notice this week in the U.S. district court in Minnesota informing the court that they have reached an agreement to settle all claims against JBS.

The filing said the agreement is subject to the court’s approval and that the plaintiffs will move for preliminary – and, ultimately, final – approval of a proposed settlement in the near future.

The settlement agreement filed does not include retailer or consumer claims made against the company.

“JBS USA has entered into an agreement to resolve all claims against the company regarding the direct sale of pork products. While JBS USA denies the allegations in the lawsuit and does not admit any liability, we believed a settlement was in the best interests of the company,” a spokesperson for JBS USA told Feedstuffs.

The lawsuit, which alleges that several large pork companies engaged in a price-fixing scheme from at least 2009 and continuing to the present day, was reopened by federal judge in Minnesota in October. The case represents the consolidation of 13 separately filed putative class actions against Smithfield Foods, Tyson Foods, Hormel Foods, Clemens Food Group, Seaboard Foods, Triumph Foods, Indiana Packers, JBS and Agri Stats.

Last year, the court granted a motion to dismiss without prejudice to the defendants against the three class complaints, giving plaintiffs 90 days to refile their amended complaints.

The plaintiffs refiled their amended complaints, and the defendants brought two joint motions. Court documents also stated that two related cases subsequently had been combined with this action: Winn-Dixie Stores Inc. et al. vs. Agri Stats Inc. et al. and Puerto Rico vs. Agri Stats Inc. et al. The former was brought by two direct-purchaser grocery chains, Winn-Dixie and Bi-Lo; the latter was brought by the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.

The plaintiffs allege that, from at least 2009 and continuing to the present day, the defendants, which together control more than 80% of the wholesale pork integration market, began to conspire to “fix, raise, maintain and stabilize the price of pork” and that this was accomplished “by coordinating output and limiting production with the intent and expected result of increasing pork prices in the United States.”

The lawsuits claim that the defendants were able to carry out this conspiracy in two ways. First, “defendants exchanged detailed, competitively sensitive and closely guarded non-public information about prices, capacity, sales volume and demand through their co-conspirator, defendant Agri Stats.” Second, plaintiffs allege that the defendants were able to carry out the conspiracy through public statements aimed at one another regarding the need to cut production.

When the case was reopened, the court granted a motion to dismiss by Indiana Packers “because plaintiffs fail to adequately plead participation in the parallel conduct by defendant Indiana Packers.”