WASHINGTON - Food giants Kraft, General Mills, Kellogg and Nestle on Nov 30 won a US$17.7 million (S$23.6 million) damages verdict after persuading a Chicago federal jury that they were overcharged for egg products in a price-fixing conspiracy by the biggest US egg producers and industry trade groups.
The damages award could be tripled under US antitrust law to more than US$53 million.
It capped the second phase of a two-part trial against Cal-Maine Foods, which is the country’s largest egg producer and distributor, and Rose Acre Farms, the second largest, over claims that they artificially inflated prices.
The same jury on Nov 21 found the egg producers liable for the alleged antitrust conspiracy after a more than five-week trial.
Ridgeland, Mississippi-based Cal-Maine and the other defendants had denied any wrongdoing.
Cal-Maine, in a statement on Nov 30, called the damages amount “modest” compared with what the plaintiffs sought.
The company will “continue to evaluate its options, including, if necessary, an appeal”.
Lawyers for other defendants did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
The damages award was limited to alleged overpayments during a four-year window in the mid-2000s.
The plaintiffs said in a filing that they were seeking US$31 million in damages.
“We are extremely grateful for the jury’s service and findings. This was an important case for many reasons, and the jury’s award recognizes its significance,” said a lead lawyer for the food plaintiffs Brandon Fox of law firm Jenner & Block.
The jury’s liability decision held Cal-Maine accountable with other defendants, including trade associations United Egg Producers and United States Egg Marketers.
Cal-Maine would share responsibility for the damages award with the other three defendants.
Attorneys for the defendants argued during the trial that consumer demand and independent corporate interests drove their business decisions.
Cal-Maine has asked US District Judge Steven Seeger to enter judgment in the company’s favour, which would moot the jury’s verdict, arguing that the plaintiffs presented insufficient evidence on both liability and damages.
That request is pending. REUTERS
