ROCKLAND (AP) – A jury concluded Tuesday that three Maine blueberry processors illegally conspired to fix prices, costing growers $18.68 million over a four-year period.

The defense greeted the verdict with disbelief, saying it would cause the collapse of the state’s wild blueberry industry if it were allowed to stand.

With triple damages and attorney fees, the total potential award to growers would exceed $60 million, said William Robitzek, the Lewiston attorney who represented growers in the class-action lawsuit.

The verdict was returned shortly before noon at the close of a two-week trial in Knox County Superior Court. Jurors deliberated for five hours over two days.

Nathan Pease of Union filed the antitrust lawsuit more than three years ago. It accused the processors of conspiring to set low field prices for the state’s blueberry crop from 1996 to 1999.

Robitzek said he was not surprised at the amount of damages awarded by jurors.

“It was the exact figure we asked for. It was what our economist said was the extent of the damage,” he said.

He said the actual total would be lower than $60 million because some Maine growers opted out of the lawsuit against Jasper Wyman & Son of Milbridge, Cherryfield Foods Inc. of Cherryfield and Allen’s Blueberry Freezer Inc. of Ellsworth.

About 800 growers, most of them located near the coast from York County to Washington County, stand to share in the award.

Maine and eastern Canada are the leading producers of wild blueberries, with Maine’s crop grown in large part in Hancock and Washington counties. Production during the four years at issue was valued at a total of $128.3 million.

The combined profits of the three defendants during that period were significantly below the $18.68 million awarded by the jury, according to Melissa Hewey, a Portland lawyer representing Cherryfield Foods.

“This is going to put the processing of wild blueberries out of business in the state of Maine,” she said. “And it’s hard to imagine how that helps promote competition, which is what the antitrust statute is intended to do.”

Justice Joseph Jabar denied an attempt by the defense to make jurors aware of the triple damages provision of the antitrust law, she said.

Hewey said the companies planned to ask the judge to overrule the jury verdict; failing that, the case will be appealed to the Supreme Judicial Court, she said.

Acknowledging that the growers have no interest in driving the processors out of the market, Robitzek said he advised defense lawyers that the door remains open to a negotiated settlement.

“Our goal is to make the way they set the field price more transparent,” he said. “We may be able to work something out, with minimum price guarantees as a possible solution.”

Robitzek said growers deliver their crop in August without knowing what they will be paid until October. Growers have no input, he said, and processors announce a price that may or may not provide growers with a profit.

During the trial, attorneys for the processors said buyers from competing companies would occasionally get together as part of their efforts to promote the industry as a whole. But they denied that participants set prices.

“I think that the jury was confused about the issue of matching prices, which is expected and is completely legal in a competitive market,” Hewey said.

The court planned to set up a conference in the coming weeks to consider motions and begin setting up a process for growers to submit claims.

AP-ES-11-18-03 1602EST