DOJ: Antitrust case against Pilgrim’s execs dropped

Price fixing charges against the final two poultry executives – formerly from Pilgrim’s Pride – have been dismissed by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ).

Chris Ryan I iStock.com
Chris Ryan I iStock.com
Getty Images

Price fixing charges against the final two poultry executives – formerly from Pilgrim’s Pride – have been dismissed by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ). 

The antitrust case against the defendants Jason McGuire – former executive vice president of sales at Pilgrim’s Pride – and Timothy Stiller – former general manager at Pilgrim’s Pride – was dropped due to a lack of evidence, according to Reuters

The DOJ “has not met its burden of demonstrating a price-fixing or bid-rigging conspiracy by a preponderance of the evidence,” said U.S. District Judge Daniel Domenico. “The government’s evidence in this case has been far from convincing.”

The two defendants, among other poultry industry executives, were charged with conspiracy of fixing prices in 2021, but now all charges have been dropped.  

Pilgrim’s Pride and Claxton Poultry acquittal 

With previous trials lacking enough evidence or even going to mistrial, all defendants have been acquitted over the past year. 

The previous acquittal was July 7, 2022, in which five defendants were found not guilty: former Pilgrim’s Pride CEOs Jayson Penn and Bill Lovette, Claxton Poultry President Mikell Fries, Claxton Poultry Vice President Scott Brady, and former Pilgrim’s Pride Vice President Roger Austin.

The specific charges were a conspiracy to rig bids and restrain trade to drive up the price of chicken. 

 “Although we are disappointed in the verdict, we will continue to vigorously enforce the antitrust laws, especially when it comes to price-fixing schemes that affect core staples,” the DOJ told Bloomberg after the acquittal. “We will not be deterred from continuing to vigilantly pursue cases to protect the American people and our markets.”

According to Reuters, after dismissing the case, the DOJ might take the opportunity to bring in a new case against the defendants in the future. 

Page 1 of 56
Next Page