Maryland Retailers Association has partnered with Class Action Capital, a market leader in class action settlement claim management. Class Action Capital is successfully working with over 5,000 corporate clients across the country and specializes in the research, education, data collection, analysis and claim filing of complex class action settlements. Our offer is to assist your company with recovering your pro-rata share of settlement funds by handling all the heavy lifting.

Many companies do not have the time, resources or relevant data available in order to file a settlement claim. Class Action Capital will work with you in order to submit a fully comprehensive claim recovery, while minimizing the use of your time, internal resources and the risk of mistake if you were to take on claims management on your own.

Class Action Capital identified that many Maryland Retailer Association members are likely eligible for pro-rata payments in multiple class action litigations. The majority of these cases stem from allegations that defendants conspired to fix, raise and maintain pricing of their products, resulting in purchasers paying higher prices than they would have in a competitive market in violation of state and federal antitrust laws.

The only thing Class Action Capital needs to get started is for your company to complete our Claim Authorization Form below. Once completed we will get to work analyzing your claim to prepare and file for the impending deadlines in a timely manner.

Class Action Settlement Opportunities:

Payment Card Interchange Fee Settlement:

On September 18, 2018, a Superseding and Amended Definitive Class Settlement Agreement was filed with the Court. This is a proposed $5.56–$6.26 billion settlement to provide payments to merchants who accepted Visa and MasterCard at any time from January 1, 2004. The terms of this proposed settlement would modify, amend and supersede the Definitive Class Settlement Agreement in which approval was reversed and remanded by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals on June 30, 2016.
If the Court grants preliminary approval to the new settlement, relevant documents, dates, deadlines and other information will be posted on this website. Following preliminary approval, known class members would be mailed a notice about their legal rights and the release of their claims. Information about the settlement would also be published in online media as well as in newspapers, consumer magazines and trade publications.
Potential claimants do not need to sign up with a third-party service in order to participate in any monetary relief as no-cost assistant will be available from the Class Administrator and Class Counsel during the claims filing period. However, claim forms and payments are not available at this time. If the Court grants final approval and any appeals are resolved, the Court will approve a claim form and set a claim deadline. Updates about the settlement can be found on the official court-authorized settlement website at:

​​Maplevale Farms, Inc. v Koch Foods (Broiler Chicken Antitrust Settlement) – $2,250,000.00 (with more expected)

The lawsuit, Maplevale Farms, Inc. v. Koch Foods, Inc., et al. alleges that beginning in 2008, broiler chicken producers coordinated their efforts to artificially reduce the supply of broiler chickens for sale in the United States, knowing that supply reductions would increase prices. Broiler chickens constitute approximately 98% of all chicken meat sold in the United States. Direct and indirect plaintiffs allege that the defendant producers, who comprise approximately 90% of the broiler chicken market and include brand names like Tyson, Perdue and Sanderson Farms coordinated their supply reductions by sharing confidential production information with one another, closing plants, exporting hatching eggs, and destroying their breeder hens. As a result, during that time broiler chicken prices have increased nearly 50%. An icebreaker settlement was reached between Fieldale Farms (about 2.6% of the broiler chicken market) and direct purchasers.

Mushroom Direct Purchaser Antitrust Litigation – $12,125,000 (with more expected)

This lawsuit alleges major mushroom growers spread across 36 non-Western states limited the amount of Agaricus mushroom farms supply of White Button, Crimini and Portabella mushrooms (more than 97% of the mushrooms purchased) in violation of antitrust laws. The defendants include several dozen mushroom growers, and the Eastern Mushroom Marketing Cooperative who collectively supply roughly 90% of the mushrooms consumed in the 36-class states. The class period ranges between 2001 – 2005. Recently, settlements have been reached with 5 of 29 defendants for $12,125,000.

​Korean Ramen Noodle Antitrust Litigation – $1,500,000.00 (with more expected)

This settlement and ongoing litigation pertains to both Direct and Indirect purchasers of Korean Noodle Products between 2003 – 2010. A settlement has been reached with Samyang for $1,500,000 while cases against Nong Shim and Ottogi are proceeding to trial.

Packaged Seafood Antitrust Litigation

This settlement covers both Direct and Indirect purchasers of packaged tuna-fish. Plantiffs allege that many of the nation’s leading suppliers of packaged tuna-fish (including Bumble Bee, Starkist and Chicken of the Sea) engaged in a conspiracy to fix the price of their products from 2013 to the present.
The Direct Settlement Class is primarily comprised of large grocers who purchase canned tuna directly from the defendants. The Indirect Settlement Class covers both grocers who purchase from a third-party distributor and consumers who purchase canned tuna for their own consumption.

First Impressions Salon Inc. v. National Milk Producers Federation

This case alleges the defendants colluded to artificially inflate the price of raw milk, butter and cheese from 2008 – 2013 by implementing herd retirement programs which resulted in dairy cows prematurely being sold to slaughterhouses in a deliberate effort to limit the supply of raw milk and artificially inflate the price of milk-based products.
The defendants include Agri-Mark, Inc., Cooperative Working Together, Diary Farmers of America, Inc., Land O’Lakes and the National Milk Producers Federation.