85310 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 234 / Thursday, December 7, 2023 / Notices 

preceding the date of these breaches. 

The Commission also considered the 

following aggravating factors: (1) the law 

firm’s use of the CBI and its provision 

to an associate were not inadvertent; (2) 

unauthorized individuals had access to 

and presumably viewed the CBI; (3) the 

law firm violated the APO in three 

different ways; (4) the law firm did not 

discover the public exposure of the CBI; 

and (5) the law firm failed to follow its 

own procedures by accessing and using 

CBI to which the firm had restricted 

access pending the completion of the 

cross-use agreement. 

The Commission also considered the 

law firm’s argument that its use of the 

exhibit and its provision of CBI to the 

associate attorney was consistent with 

28 U.S.C. 1659(b), which provides for 

the transfer and admissibility of the 

Commission record in federal district 

court litigation under certain 

circumstances. However, the 

Commission determined that the exhibit 

at issue was not a part of the 

Commission record, as defined under 19 

CFR 210.38(a), and thus, it was not 

within the scope of section 1659(b). In 

addition, the Commission noted that the 

application of section 1659(b) would not 

mitigate the public exposure of the CBI. 

The Commission determined to issue 

private letters of reprimand to the 

partner who served as lead counsel and 

to the senior counsel. The Commission 

determined that they were both part of 

the decisions to use the CBI in the filing, 

to provide it to the associate attorney, 

and to delegate the removal of the 

exhibit to the associate, who did not 

have any previous experience with 

section 337 investigations and 

Commission APO practice. The 

Commission determined to issue a 

warning letter to the second partner, 

who worked on the filing and was aware 

of the associate’s access to the CBI, but 

was not involved with the finalization 

of the document or the failed process to 

remove the confidential exhibit. 

The Commission found that good 

cause existed to issue a warning letter 

to the associate under 19 CFR 201.15(a). 

The associate was not a signatory to the 

APO in the underlying section 337 

investigation and did not have previous 

Commission APO experience, and thus 

the Commission determined that the 

issuance of a sanction would be 

inappropriate. However, the associate 

had several years of experience as an 

attorney, was aware that the exhibit was 

confidential, and had received specific 

instructions to remove the confidential 

exhibit from the filing. The associate 

was also directly responsible for the 

public exposure of CBI. 

Case 8. The Commission determined 

that an attorney at a law firm breached 

the APO issued in a section 337 

investigation when the law firm 

publicly filed in EDIS and served to its 

clients a confidential document that the 

attorney had prepared. 

Although the document contained 

unredacted CBI, the attorney did not 

place confidential headers on the 

document when he was preparing it to 

be filed. As a result, after the attorney 

finalized the document, a paralegal filed 

the document publicly on EDIS, and the 

law firm’s client, who was not on the 

APO, was provided with a copy of the 

document. After the document was 

posted to EDIS, opposing counsel 

notified the attorney that the document 

contained CBI, and the paralegal, at the 

attorney’s direction, contacted the 

Office of the Secretary to request that 

the document be removed from public 

view. In addition, the attorney contacted 

the client who had received the 

document and requested that the client 

destroy it. The attorney refiled the 

document as confidential, but multiple 

unauthorized individuals had accessed 

the document while it was available 

publicly on EDIS. 

In determining whether to issue a 

sanction for the breach, the Commission 

considered the following mitigating 

factors: (1) the breach was unintentional 

and inadvertent; (2) the attorney selfreported the breach to the Commission; 

(3) after being notified of the breach, the 

attorney took prompt action to remedy 

the breach and prevent further 

dissemination of CBI; and (4) the 

attorney had not previously breached an 

APO in the two-year period preceding 

the date of this breach. The Commission 

also considered the following 

aggravating factors: (1) the attorney did 

not discover the breach; and (2) 

unauthorized individuals had access to 

and presumably viewed the CBI. 

The Commission determined to issue 

a private letter of reprimand to the 

attorney. The Commission determined 

not to hold the paralegal who filed the 

document or any other individuals at 

the law firm responsible for the breach. 

The attorney was the only person 

involved in the preparation of the 

document for filing, and the breach 

occurred because the attorney failed to 

apply CBI headers. 

Case 9. The Commission determined 

that an attorney breached the APO in a 

section 337 investigation by 

transmitting to unauthorized 

individuals a link to a document that 

contained unredacted CBI obtained 

under the APO. 

The attorney discovered the breach 

eight days after sending the link when 

he received a question from one of the 

unauthorized recipients who had gained 

unauthorized access. Upon learning of 

the breach, the attorney immediately 

deactivated the link and confirmed that 

unauthorized recipients had destroyed 

the document and would refrain from 

using any CBI that they may have 

viewed. The attorney also immediately 

reported the breach to the opposing 

counsel and, two days later, reported 

the breach to the Commission. 

In determining whether to issue a 

sanction for the breach, the Commission 

considered mitigating factors, including 

that: (1) the breach was inadvertent and 

unintentional; (2) the law firm 

discovered its own breach; (3) the law 

firm promptly self-reported the breach; 

(4) after discovering the breach, the law 

firm took prompt action to remedy the 

breach and prevent further 

dissemination of CBI; (5) the law firm 

implemented new procedures to prevent 

against similar breaches in the future; 

and (6) the attorney had not previously 

breached an APO in the two-year period 

preceding the date of this breach. The 

Commission also considered the 

aggravating factor that unauthorized 

persons had access to and presumably 

viewed CBI. 

The Commission issued a private 

letter of reprimand to the attorney. 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: December 1, 2023. 

Sharon Bellamy, 

Supervisory Hearings and Information 

Officer. 

[FR Doc. 2023–26806 Filed 12–6–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[USITC SE–23–058] 

Sunshine Act Meetings 

Agency Holding the Meeting: United 

States International Trade Commission. 

TIME AND DATE: December 14, 2023 at 

11:00 a.m. 

PLACE: Room 101, 500 E Street SW, 

Washington, DC 20436, Telephone: 

(202) 205–2000. 

STATUS: Open to the public. 

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: 

1. Agendas for future meetings: none. 

2. Minutes. 

3. Ratification List. 

4. Commission vote on Inv. Nos. 701– 

TA–583 and 731–TA–1381 

(Review)(Cast Iron Soil Pipe Fittings 

from China). The Commission currently 

is scheduled to complete and file its 

determinations and views of the 

Commission on December 21, 2023. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 234 / Thursday, December 7, 2023 / Notices 85311 

1Most chicken farmers raise ‘‘broilers,’’ the 

chickens that are slaughtered and processed for 

people to consume. Other chicken farmers raise 

breeder hens or pullets (chicks). In at least some 

cases, Koch imposed its exit fees on breeder-hen 

and pullet farmers as well as broiler farmers. 

5. Outstanding action jackets: none. 

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: 

Sharon Bellamy, Supervisory Hearings 

and Information Officer, 202–205–2000. 

The Commission is holding the 

meeting under the Government in the 

Sunshine Act, 5 U.S.C. 552(b). In 

accordance with Commission policy, 

subject matter listed above, not disposed 

of at the scheduled meeting, may be 

carried over to the agenda of the 

following meeting. 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: December 5, 2023. 

Sharon Bellamy, 

Supervisory Hearings and Information 

Officer. 

[FR Doc. 2023–26967 Filed 12–5–23; 4:15 pm] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Antitrust Division 

United States v. Koch Foods 

Incorporated; Proposed Final 

Judgment and Competitive Impact 

Statement 

Notice is hereby given pursuant to the 

Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act, 

15 U.S.C. 16(b)–(h), that a proposed 

Final Judgment, Stipulation, and 

Competitive Impact Statement have 

been filed with the United States 

District Court for the Northern District 

of Illinois, Eastern Division, in United 

States v. Koch Foods Incorporated, Civil 

Action No. 23–15813. On November 9, 

2023, the United States filed a 

Complaint alleging that Koch Foods 

Incorporated (‘‘Koch’’), one of the 

largest poultry processors in the United 

States, unlawfully requires independent 

chicken farmers to pay Koch an exit fee 

if the farmers switch from working with 

Koch to working with one of its rivals. 

Koch’s practices are alleged to violate 

section 202(a) of the Packers and 

Stockyards Act and section 1 of the 

Sherman Act. 

The proposed Final Judgment, filed at 

the same time as the Complaint, 

requires Koch to refrain from including 

a termination payment obligation in any 

farmer contracts and from taking any 

steps to collect any termination 

payments for the next seven years. It 

also requires Koch to repay all 

termination payments it has received 

from farmers, and to reimburse farmers 

for legal costs they incurred in 

responding to Koch’s efforts to collect 

termination payments. 

Koch is required to certify that it has 

given the required notices to farmers, 

made the required payments and 

reimbursements within 120 days of 

entry of the Final Judgment, and 

submitted any disputed claims for 

payment or reimbursement to a referee 

selected by the Division, whose decision 

will be final. Koch will provide an 

annual certification that it continues to 

comply with provisions of the proposed 

Final Judgment for its duration of seven 

years, unless it is terminated earlier by 

agreement with the Division and a 

determination by the Court that 

termination is in the public interest. The 

proposed Final Judgment also imposes 

other cooperation and reporting 

requirements. 

Copies of the Complaint, proposed 

Final Judgment, and Competitive Impact 

Statement are available for inspection 

on the Antitrust Division’s website at 

http://www.justice.gov/atr and at the 

Office of the Clerk of the United States 

District Court for the Northern District 

of Illinois, Eastern Division. Copies of 

these materials may be obtained from 

the Antitrust Division upon request and 

payment of the copying fee set by 

Department of Justice regulations. 

Public comment is invited within 60 

days of the date of this notice. Such 

comments, including the name of the 

submitter, and responses thereto, will be 

posted on the Antitrust Division’s 

website, filed with the Court, and, under 

certain circumstances, published in the 

Federal Register. Comments should be 

submitted in English and directed to 

Chief, Civil Conduct Task Force, 

Antitrust Division, Department of 

Justice, 450 Fifth Street NW, Suite 8600, 

Washington, DC 20530 (email address: 

ATRJudgmentCompliance@usdoj.gov). 

Suzanne Morris, 

Deputy Director of Civil Enforcement 

Operations, Antitrust Division. 

United States District Court for the 

Northern District of Illinois Eastern 

Division 

United States of America, 450 Fifth Street 

NW, Washington, DC 20530, Plaintiff, v. 

Koch Foods Incorporated, 1300 W Higgins 

Road, Suite 100, Park Ridge, IL 60068, 

Defendant. 

Case No. 1:23–cv–15813 

Judge John F. Kness 

Complaint 

Raising chickens is a bet-the-farm 

proposition. Many chicken farmers must 

borrow hundreds of thousands of 

dollars to finance the construction of 

chicken houses—huge structures that 

hold over 50,000 chickens each. A 

farmer is largely beholden to a poultry 

processor, which owns the chicks, feed, 

antibiotics, and other inputs for raising 

chickens. Without a loan from the bank, 

there is no farm; without a contract with 

a processor, there is no loan; and 

without the processor’s fair dealing, the 

farm may fail. 

To secure better working conditions 

or pay, a chicken farmer’s only recourse 

often is switching processors. Even in 

the best of circumstances, competition 

for farmers’ chicken growing services is 

uncertain because switching processors 

can be a costly, risky, and difficult 

endeavor. But Koch Foods, a leading 

poultry processor, has suppressed 

competition even further by imposing 

exit penalties on its chicken farmers 

who want to switch to a competitor. 

Koch’s conduct deprives farmers of the 

benefits of competition and lowers their 

compensation. Koch’s exit penalties are 

an unfair practice under section 202(a) 

of the Packers and Stockyards Act and 

violate section 1 of the Sherman Act. 

These practices should be enjoined. 

I. Introduction 

1. A chicken farmer’s success depends 

on a processor. A farmer must invest 

hundreds of thousands of dollars to 

build chicken houses to a processor’s 

specifications. A bank will loan money 

for the construction only if a processor 

has agreed to offer the farmer a contract; 

the bank often sees the farmer’s contract 

before the farmer. After obtaining a loan 

and building the houses, the farmer 

generally has no practical alternative 

but to accept the contract terms for 

growing chickens offered by the 

processor. 

2. Once built, chickens houses cannot 

be relocated or readily repurposed. If 

the processor provides insufficient 

flocks, poor quality chicks, or 

substandard feed, the farmer may not 

earn enough to meet the terms of the 

loan—and can literally lose the farm. 

3. Broiler chicken farmers, commonly 

called ‘‘growers,’’ generally can contract 

only with a processor operating a 

processing facility close enough to 

transport chickens and feed costeffectively.1 Few growers have more 

than three other processors close 

enough to contract for their growing 

services. And when the grower wants to 

switch processors, alternative 

processors may not need new growers. 

4. For these reasons, processors have 

substantial leverage over contract 

growers. Where it exists, competition 

among processors for chicken growers 

can sometimes increase their 

compensation and motivate a processor 

to provide better terms to farmers. 

Growers’ ability to switch processors 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1