Food Manufacturers Awarded over $53M in Damages in Egg Supply Conspiracy Case
A federal jury in Illinois has ordered $17.7 million in damages to be paid to several food manufacturing companies who sued major egg producers over a conspiracy to limit the egg supply in the United States. Under federal law, the damages are automatically tripled to more than $53 million.
The jury ruled that the egg producers used various means to limit the domestic supply of eggs in order to increase the price of products during the 2000s. The conspiracy was determined to have occurred between 2004 and 2008.
The damages verdict was reached last week in the Northern District of Illinois, and court documents on the verdict were not readily available. However, statements from the manufacturers’ attorney and one of the egg producers confirmed the total to be about $17.7 million.
Brandon Fox, an attorney representing the food manufacturers, expressed gratitude for the jury’s service and findings, stating, “This was an important case for many reasons, and the jury’s award recognizes its significance.”
The defendants have denied the claims, and John Rust, the former Chair of one of the egg suppliers, has stated that the jury’s decision will be appealed.
The jury specifically found that the egg suppliers exported eggs abroad to reduce the overall supply in the domestic market and limited the number of chickens through various means. The food manufacturers joining as plaintiffs in the lawsuit against the egg producers include Kraft Foods Global, Inc., The Kellogg Company, General Mills, Inc., and Nestle USA, Inc.
Following the verdict, the egg producers involved in the conspiracy expressed their disagreement and indicated that they will explore all legal options, including post-trial relief and appeal.
In a separate development, John Rust, the former Chair of one of the egg suppliers, launched a political attack on his opponent U.S. Rep. Jim Banks, accusing him of siding with “mega corporations over the American farmer” in the aftermath of the jury’s ruling. In response, Banks stated, “Hoosiers aren’t going to vote for a crook.”
Overall, the case highlights the ongoing legal battles and political maneuvering in the agriculture industry, as well as the implications for the upcoming election in Indiana.