A North Carolina Business Court judge has denied Smithfield Foods’ motion to bifurcate its upcoming trial with Maxwell Foods, a key development in an ongoing legal battle stemming from a 25-year hog supply agreement.
The dispute centers on Smithfield’s alleged refusal to renegotiate pricing or uphold contract terms during the COVID-19 pandemic, despite continued hog deliveries by Maxwell. Maxwell Foods claims Smithfield violated the agreement by offering more favorable terms to other producers and underpaying for hogs—allegations that the court previously ruled valid.
In January, the court sided with Maxwell on all counts, rejecting Smithfield’s counterclaims which included force majeure and anticipatory breach defenses. The case is now moving forward to determine the extent of damages Smithfield may owe.
Smithfield had argued that splitting the trial into liability and damages phases would improve efficiency and fairness. However, the judge ruled that such a move would likely delay proceedings, disrupt preparation, and unfairly prejudice Maxwell.
Additionally, the court ruled that Maxwell is permitted to reference the breach finding during the damages phase—so long as the previous rulings are not misrepresented or exaggerated.
This case highlights ongoing tensions in long-term hog supply contracts and the legal scrutiny surrounding contract enforcement during pandemic-era disruptions. As the trial proceeds, pork industry stakeholders are watching closely for implications that may affect future supplier relationships and pricing agreements.
For more updates, visit swineweb.com.
