Eric L. Cramer

UFC fighter pay and the rejected settlement

Antitrust law often reaches a person through a number set somewhere else: the purse for a fight, the payment for raising a flock, the fee attached to a diesel-card transaction, or the grant line in a college aid letter. Eric L. Cramer’s plaintiff-side work repeatedly examines the systems behind those numbers. He is chairman of Berger Montague, works from its Philadelphia headquarters, and co-chairs the firm’s antitrust department.

Cramer graduated from Princeton and Harvard Law School and joined Berger Montague in 1995. He became chairman in January 2019. His law-school summers were spent in environmental public-interest work, and his early practice included litigation concerning nuclear facilities. That work required translating scientific evidence for judges and juries, a skill he later applied to contracts, industry records, transaction data, and econometric models in antitrust cases.

The UFC litigation concerned a market for athletic labor. Beginning in December 2014, Cung Le, Nathan Quarry, Jon Fitch, Brandon Vera, Luis Javier Vazquez, and Kyle Kingsbury brought cases later consolidated against Zuffa, the company operating the UFC. They alleged that exclusive contracts, acquisitions, and related practices allowed Zuffa to control the market for elite mixed-martial-arts services and suppress fighter compensation. Zuffa denied wrongdoing and argued, among other things, that it helped create the modern MMA industry, paid more than other promoters, and increased fighter pay.

The court certified a Bout Class in August 2023 covering qualifying UFC fighters from December 16, 2010 through June 30, 2017. It appointed Le, Fitch, Vera, Vazquez, and Kingsbury as class representatives; Quarry had been proposed for an Identity Rights Class that was not certified. The court denied summary judgment in January 2024 and set the case for trial. Berger Montague, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, and Joseph Saveri Law Firm served as Co-Lead Class Counsel. Berger identifies Cramer, Michael Dell’Angelo, and Patrick Madden as leading its part of the team.

The litigation produced more than 775,000 documents totaling over three million pages, as well as tens of thousands of text messages. Plaintiffs issued subpoenas to more than 50 third parties, worked with economic and accounting experts, and participated in a seven-day class-certification hearing. Cramer’s fee declaration reported 6,515.4 hours for him and 30,291.8 hours for Berger through October 31, 2024. Those figures came from counsel’s fee submission, and the case also required substantial work by the other co-lead firms, supporting counsel, experts, and representative fighters.

With trial approaching, the parties first proposed resolving both Le and the later Johnson v. Zuffa action for $335 million plus prospective relief. Plaintiffs initially proposed allocating 75 percent, or $251.25 million, to Le and later proposed 90 percent, or $301.5 million. The court denied preliminary approval in July 2024. The renewed motion identified four concerns: the proposed amounts were too small; Le was certified and near trial while Johnson remained in early discovery; Le sought damages while Johnson also sought injunctive relief; and the Johnson group included fighters with different arbitration circumstances.

The revised agreement separated the cases. Zuffa agreed to a $375 million gross fund for Le alone, $40 million above the earlier amount proposed for both actions, while Johnson remained available for post-June 2017 damages claims and forward-looking relief. The court granted final approval in March 2025. Of 1,121 eligible fighters, 1,088 submitted claims. By March 31, 2026, $237,386,515.53 had been issued to 984 claimants in 44 countries. The fund is reduced by approved fees, expenses, service awards, administration, and applicable taxes; Zuffa did not admit liability. TKO reported that Johnson remained in discovery without a trial date, and a separate action addressed fighters with arbitration and class-waiver provisions.

Growers, integrators, and the price of a flock

Before a broiler reaches a grocery shelf, it moves through a production system largely directed by an integrator. The class-certification opinion describes integrators hatching chicks, producing feed, delivering both to growers, collecting the grown birds, and sending them for processing. Growers provide the land, buildings, equipment, utilities, and labor. The buildings may be designed to an integrator’s specifications, leaving a farmer’s investment closely connected to the company that supplies the birds.

Growers alleged that Tyson, Pilgrim’s Pride, Perdue, Koch Foods, and Sanderson Farms suppressed compensation through two reinforcing practices: exchanging confidential grower-pay information and agreeing not to recruit one another’s growers. The complaint asserted claims under the Sherman Act and the Packers and Stockyards Act. The companies denied wrongdoing, and settlement ended the claims before a merits judgment on the challenged practices.

The court certified a nationwide litigation class in May 2024. The related settlement class covered growers compensated for broiler grow-out services from January 27, 2013 through December 31, 2019, subject to the agreement’s definitions and exclusions. Hausfeld and Berger Montague were appointed Settlement Class Counsel; Berger’s matter page identifies Cramer, while Hausfeld identifies Melinda Coolidge, Gary Smith Jr., and Kyle Bates. Counsel reported more than two million documents, tens of millions of pages, transactional data on over 650,000 flocks, 73 depositions taken, and eight class-representative depositions defended across the litigation team.

Settlements with all five defendants totaled $169 million: $21 million from Tyson, $14.75 million from Perdue, $15.5 million from Koch, $17.75 million from Sanderson, and $100 million from Pilgrim’s. The court finally approved the Pilgrim’s agreement in January 2025 and approved pro rata distribution of the net common fund. The Pilgrim’s terms also restricted enforcement of covered arbitration clauses and class-action waivers for five years. The cash amount is gross and subject to court-approved fees, expenses, service awards, and administration.

All five defendants settled before a merits verdict. The final order bound the settlement class and dismissed the released claims against Pilgrim’s while preserving valid opt-outs. The court approved the settlement fund, but the public docket did not show that every grower distribution had been completed. Growers supplied fixed buildings, operating costs, labor, and risk under contracts written inside a concentrated production system.

Marchbanks and the five-year contract terms

At an independent truck stop, a fleet card can appear to be an ordinary payment method. The merchant sees a second layer: a percentage-based transaction fee and contract terms governing discounts, surcharges, and efforts to move customers to another payment program. Across years of diesel sales, a small charge on each transaction can become a material operating cost. Marchbanks Truck Service v. Comdata examined those terms from the position of the merchants paying them.

Independent truck stops alleged that Comdata and parent Ceridian used anti-steering, most-favored-nation, no-surcharge, and related provisions to protect Comdata’s fleet-card fees. The complaint also challenged agreements involving Pilot, TravelCenters of America, and Love’s. Defendants denied liability. The settlement agreement names Cramer and Andrew Curley of Berger Montague, Eric Fastiff and Dean Harvey of Lieff Cabraser, and Stephen Neuwirth and Dale Oliver of Quinn Emanuel as Class Counsel. Berger served as co-lead counsel within that team.

The settlement created a $130 million gross fund: $100 million from Comdata and Ceridian and $10 million each from Love’s, Pilot, and TravelCenters. It covered eligible owners and operators of United States truck stops and retail fueling facilities that paid percentage-based fees directly to Comdata during the settlement period beginning March 1, 2003 and ending with preliminary approval on March 17, 2014. The agreement also restricted specified active-sales bans and fee-MFN provisions, permitted surcharging under defined conditions, and required supporting point-of-sale functionality and pump disclosures.

The court granted final approval in July 2014. Most central prospective covenants ran for five years, including restrictions on specified anti-steering terms and the conditional surcharge provision. Those covenants have expired. Approved fees, expenses, service awards, taxes, and administration reduced the gross fund, and the settlement contained no finding of liability. The case tied recurring merchant costs to the contract terms that governed every transaction.

Financial aid after class certification

In Henry v. Brown University, the disputed mechanism reaches families through a financial-aid calculation. Former students allege that 17 private universities used the 568 Presidents Group’s shared “Consensus Approach” and principles to reduce competition in need-based aid. Their theory depends on the statutory exemption that allowed qualifying institutions to agree on need-analysis principles if all participating schools admitted students without regard to financial circumstances. The universities deny an unlawful agreement, wrongdoing, and damages, and have defended the collaboration as lawful.

Cramer leads Berger Montague’s work as the firm serves under MoloLamken’s lead. Summary judgment had been denied in January, allowing the claims against the remaining universities to proceed.

Twelve universities have settled for a combined gross amount of $319.25 million. Brown, Chicago, Columbia, Dartmouth, Duke, Emory, Northwestern, Rice, Vanderbilt, and Yale supplied the first $284 million; Caltech added $16.75 million and Johns Hopkins added $18.5 million. Cornell, Georgetown, MIT, Notre Dame, and Penn remain litigating defendants. The settlements contain no admission of wrongdoing and resolve claims against the settling schools only.

The certified class does not include every person who attended one of the schools. It generally covers people who, during an applicable school-specific period, enrolled in a full-time undergraduate program, received at least some need-based aid, and still paid a portion of tuition, fees, room, or board after grant and merit aid. The order contains exclusions for specified university personnel, trustees, and non-United States citizens or permanent residents. The periods also vary by institution, beginning as early as fall 2003 and ending on different dates.

Plaintiffs’ economist estimated class damages of $685 million, and the court allowed the model to proceed. The figure remains an expert estimate. The court authorized a first distribution from the initial $284 million fund on July 2, 2026, and payments began later that month. Claims against five remaining universities continue toward a trial scheduled for November 2026, while the approved settlements fund the distributions already underway.