Dr. Hal Singer’s Expert Analyses Cited as Critical Evidence in Court’s Summary Judgment Motions in Pork Antitrust Litigation

Dr. Hal Singer’s expert economic analyses were extensively cited in the court’s decision to largely deny summary judgment motions filed by major pork producers, paving the way for a June 2025 trial. The Plaintiffs allege that major pork producers—including Tyson, JBS, Smithfield, and others—conspired to fix pork prices and further restrict supply through coordinated data sharing through the analytics firm Agri Stats. The court found that “[a]ll the above evidence, combined with Dr. Singer’s findings, lends plausibility to the alleged conspiracy[.]”

The court credited Dr. Singer’s analyses that demonstrated that Defendants used their significant market share to artificially inflate pork prices. The court found that “In particular, Plaintiffs’ expert Dr. Singer concluded that the margins between hog prices and pork prices widened during the Relevant Period, indicating that there were stronger pork margins during this time, such that Defendants “captured more value in the supply chain.” (Singer ¶ 33.)”  The court also found that “Dr. Singer’s regression model demonstrates that most of the Processor Defendants procured fewer hogs during the Relevant Period than can be explained by competitive factors alone” and further that “Dr. Singer constructed a regression analysis and determined based on his quantitative analysis that the Consumer IPPs paid artificially high prices due to the Defendants’ challenged conduct, and that those damages are quantifiable.”

The court observed that Agri Stats reports could provide a mechanism for enacting the alleged conspiracy, relying on Dr. Singer’s opinion that “the ‘very structure of the Agri Stats program was its main enforcement mechanism,’ as a ‘participating member could only receive the competitively sensitive price and quantity information if they first provided their own data as a precondition.’ (Singer Reply ¶ 115.)”

Finally, the court found that Dr. Singer’s calculation of damages was plausible, noting Dr. Singer “calculated that the Class was overcharged by 12%, or roughly $3 billion, during the Relevant Period. (Singer ¶ 288.) The Court finds this sufficient to establish that the Consumer IPP class was harmed by Defendants’ conduct for antitrust standing.” 

Dr. Singer was assisted by economist Augustus Urschel, who managed the case. Mr. Urschel was supported by Madeleine Bowe and Jacob Linger.