One of the most significant legal fights in the U.S. cattle industry is now waiting on a federal judge in Minnesota.

Patrick McGahan, lead counsel in the cattle antitrust litigation involving R-CALF USA and cattle producers, gave members an update during the organization’s convention in Rapid City, outlining the status of the case, the JBS settlement and related antitrust activity in agriculture.

The case centers on allegations that the nation’s four largest beef packers — JBS, Tyson, Cargill and National Beef — conspired beginning in 2015 to suppress fed cattle prices by reducing slaughter levels and managing supply.

McGahan said the case is now past discovery, the phase where parties exchange documents and take depositions. The next major step is class certification, where the court must decide whether the claims can move forward as a class action on behalf of fed cattle sellers.

That decision has been delayed, he said, in part because the Minnesota court has been dealing with a heavy caseload in the immigrant fraud cases. The judge is also considering several related classes, including fed cattle sellers, feeder cattle sellers, beef purchasers, commercial resellers and consumers.

McGahan said the allegations focus on the period from mid-2015 through early 2020, before COVID disrupted the market.

He described 2013 and 2014 as a period when cattle prices climbed sharply because of tight cattle supplies. According to McGahan, packer margins were squeezed as packers competed for a limited supply of finished cattle.

The lawsuit alleges that, beginning in June 2015, the packers collectively reduced slaughter levels below the available supply of cattle, forcing feedlots to carry cattle over from week to week. That pressure, McGahan said, helped drive prices down.

He pointed to internal company emails that have become part of the public record, including one discussing “volume restraint” by the industry and another referring to packers maintaining “discipline” on slaughter levels.

“If one email could summarize the case theory, that is effectively it,” McGahan said.

The packers deny the allegations, and the class certification decision will not determine whether the claims are true. Instead, the judge must decide whether the plaintiffs can prove the case using common evidence across the proposed class.

McGahan said the main battleground is economic evidence — whether cattle sellers were injured by the alleged conduct and whether damages can be calculated on a classwide basis.

If the plaintiffs prevail on class certification, the case would move toward the merits phase, including updated expert reports and likely motions for summary judgment before any trial.

McGahan also updated producers on the JBS settlement. JBS has settled its portion of the case, while litigation continues against Tyson, Cargill and National Beef. He said settlement money has been paid and is being held in an interest-bearing account while claims are reviewed.

Producers who sold fed cattle to one of the four major packers between June 2015 and February 2020 were eligible to submit claims. The claims administrator is now verifying those claims, reviewing records and weeding out invalid or fraudulent submissions.

McGahan said claimants may receive letters requesting additional information and urged producers to respond.

“If they don’t get the information they are requesting from you, that makes it difficult and then they have to deny your claim,” he said.

He estimated letters could go out later this year advising claimants of their verified claim values, with payments to follow.

McGahan also discussed the related feeder cattle litigation, which is moving on a similar track. That class has been narrowed to feeder cattle meeting certain CME specifications, generally 700- to 900-pound cattle sold into feedlots.

The broader significance of the litigation, he said, is not limited to this case. Antitrust scrutiny is also growing in other parts of agriculture, including fertilizer and seed markets.

For independent cattle producers, the case goes directly to long-running concerns about market concentration, price discovery and whether a small number of companies hold too much power over the value of cattle.

R-CALF USA has long argued that restoring competition is essential to the future of independent cattle production.

The next major moment will come when the court rules on class certification. Until then, producers who sold fed or qualifying feeder cattle during the relevant period should keep their records and watch for notices tied to the litigation.

The case is not over. But after years of discovery, filings and hearings, one of the cattle industry’s most closely watched antitrust fights is approaching a critical turn.