• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Bob Taylor's "untested" theories of price manipula

Help Support Ranchers.net:

ocm

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 16, 2005
Messages
779
Reaction score
0
There has been much made of the so-called “untested theories” of Bob Taylor. These theories were what Taylor called the “causation mechanisms” of price manipulation.

There were six of them. They were:
1. Asymmetric information
2. Preferential deals for the “chosen ones” increases total supply thereby decreasing cash price
3. Base Price in marketing agreements is typically tied to a cash market price or an in-plant price
4. Packer control over timing of cash purchases combined with packer imposed narrow trading window
5. Exclusive arrangements preempt other buyers from accessing those cattle
6. Simple Logic: Slaughter decision by the captive feeder is made before price is discovered

When asked if he had tested each of these items Taylor truthfully said “no.” In point of fact, something the jury understood, none of these points has to be proven in order to show that Tyson manipulated the price. The proof for manipulation was in the economic numerical analysis.



Try this illustration. I want to prove that a car moved (or was moved) from point A to point B. I have 6 theories as to the causation mechanisms.

1. Somebody drove it
2. Somebody pushed it
3. It rolled downhill
4. It was taken apart and reassembled
5. Somebody carried it.
6. A space alien transported it

Have I tested any of these theories? No. Why not? It would only be an exercise in intellectual curiosity, because I have pictures of the car at point A at time A, and at point B at time B. The pictures include the serial number of the car. The actual causation mechanism could have been one, all, or none of the ones I have thought of. Maybe some squirrels carried it.

And because I don’t know positively how the car was moved, I’m nuts when I say it was moved.

The jury understood. Judge Strom did not.

If you were a member of the jury, would you?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
The plaintiffs themselves had entered into captive supply arrangements with major packers.

The plaintiffs themselves testified that ibp had a legitimate business reason for using captive supply arrangements.

WHAT'S NOT TO UNDERSTAND ABOUT THAT OCM??????

"Please jurors, understand that we were forced against our will to enter into captive supply arrangements with packers therefore reducing the number of cattle they had to buy in the cash market....sniffle.....sniffle".

The jury got it wrong, Judge Strom got it right and so did the circuit court judges.

The "PERCEIVED" packer victims lost "BIIIIIIIIG TIME"!



~SH~
 

Jason

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,994
Reaction score
0
Location
Alberta Canada
ocm said:
Try this illustration. I want to prove that a car moved (or was moved) from point A to point B. I have 6 theories as to the causation mechanisms.

1. Somebody drove it
2. Somebody pushed it
3. It rolled downhill
4. It was taken apart and reassembled
5. Somebody carried it.
6. A space alien transported it

quote]

These "theories" have been tested. Has anyone ever moved a car by driving it? YES

Has anyone ever moved a car by pushing it? YES

Has a car ever moved down a hill by itself? YES

Has anyone ever dismantled a car and moved it? YES

Has anyone ever carried a car? YES (with help of course)

Only #6 about aliens hasn't been tested or proven. If you claim it is just as likely as the previous 5 I would conclude you are nuts.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
The plaintiff's case is as phony as their pom pom wavers. If you can't prove your case, CREAT THE "ILLUSION" that you can.

Same-O, Same-O from the "factually defenseless".


~SH~
 

HAY MAKER

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
8,789
Reaction score
0
Location
Texas
~SH~ said:
The plaintiff's case is as phony as their pom pom wavers. If you can't prove your case, CREAT THE "ILLUSION" that you can.

Same-O, Same-O from the "factually defenseless".


~SH~

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ same ole bull ,at least he admitted he didnt know the definition of "captive supplies".................good luck
 

HAY MAKER

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
8,789
Reaction score
0
Location
Texas
Jason said:
ocm said:
Try this illustration. I want to prove that a car moved (or was moved) from point A to point B. I have 6 theories as to the causation mechanisms.

1. Somebody drove it
2. Somebody pushed it
3. It rolled downhill
4. It was taken apart and reassembled
5. Somebody carried it.
6. A space alien transported it

quote]

These "theories" have been tested. Has anyone ever moved a car by driving it? YES

Has anyone ever moved a car by pushing it? YES

Has a car ever moved down a hill by itself? YES

Has anyone ever dismantled a car and moved it? YES

Has anyone ever carried a car? YES (with help of course)

Only #6 about aliens hasn't been tested or proven. If you claim it is just as likely as the previous 5 I would conclude you are nuts.

I conclude you are nuts for posting something like this,amazing what you packer lovers will come up with next...........good luck
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
~SH~ said:
The plaintiffs themselves had entered into captive supply arrangements with major packers.

The plaintiffs themselves testified that ibp had a legitimate business reason for using captive supply arrangements.

WHAT'S NOT TO UNDERSTAND ABOUT THAT OCM??????

"Please jurors, understand that we were forced against our will to enter into captive supply arrangements with packers therefore reducing the number of cattle they had to buy in the cash market....sniffle.....sniffle".

The jury got it wrong, Judge Strom got it right and so did the circuit court judges.

The "PERCEIVED" packer victims lost "BIIIIIIIIG TIME"!



~SH~

I think I have a previous admonishment about the possible misuse of quotes for myself. Maybe you could be good enough to apply that to others.

Just because you say it a lot of times does not make it correct. Stop the quantity and give the quality. Oh, I forgot, Tyson wants the quantity. We better inform the consumers of that one. Selling quantity for quality is a salesman's ploy when he does not have real value to bring to the table. Pointrider, was it? Here is the key to your marketing strategy to gain back the value Tyson's is stealing from you.

Did you not know, Pointrider, that the consequences of Tyson's manipulation is an increase of poultry and pork purchases over beef? Of course any profit maximizing company would try to do this. Tyson's market structure in these other commodities allows them to increase their overall profits when prices of beef go up. They pocket any increase in the price of poultry and pork products. They do not share this with their poultry and pork farmers. It just happens to break the PSA and all of the economic principles of market maximization. Tyson's deceptive arguments have fooled many but not all.

Hawker.
 

ocm

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 16, 2005
Messages
779
Reaction score
0
~SH~ said:
The plaintiffs themselves had entered into captive supply arrangements with major packers.

FASLE -unsubstantiated statement.
(Cattle at a plaintiff's feedlot that are wholly owned by a customer don't count)

~SH~ said:
The plaintiffs themselves testified that ibp had a legitimate business reason for using captive supply arrangements.

Irrelevant. "Legitimate business reason" is not part of the PSA. Even the 11th Circuit had to find it elsewhere.

If someone robs me at gunpoint I will willing testify that the robber was acting in a more efficient manner than if he had gone out and worked for it. Irrelevant! I would also testify that it is a more efficient way of taking my money than if I had to fill out a form for the IRS and give it to them. Irrelevant!!


Taylor's causation mechanism theories were not tested. Irrelevant!! The jurors knew that. THE CAR WAS MOVED. That's all that mattered!! I don't care (and neither does the ORIGINAL PSA) if there was a legitimate business reason for it's movement, that doesn't mean it didn't move. I don't care if NOBODY knows for sure how it moved. That doesn't mean it didn't move.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
SH, "The plaintiffs themselves had entered into captive supply arrangements with major packers."

Good grief! Didn't we just have a lengthy exchange on this last week? It went like this; Judge Strom says they didn't, SH says they did, SH is asked to provide proof, SH will not provide any proof. Par for this course. Let me ask you, exactly how many times do you figure you have to say something before it turns to truth?

SH, "The plaintiffs themselves testified that ibp had a legitimate business reason for using captive supply arrangements."

They also testified that IBP/Tyson also had an illegitimate and illegal reason - one which IBP/Tyson would not dispute.

If I hold you up at gunpoint, and the judge asked you if I had a legitimate use for that shotgun, you would have to honestly testify that I did. I could hunt with it and/or shoot skeet and may actually have done so with that gun. However, what the heck does that have to do with the crime? Would you feel justice had been served if the judge throws out your case because I can prove I used that gun duck hunting?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
OCM: "FASLE -unsubstantiated statement.
(Cattle at a plaintiff's feedlot that are wholly owned by a customer don't count)"

WRONG! THAT IS A FACT!

Cattle at a plaintiff's feedlot that are sold by the plaintiff under a captive supply arrangement DO COUNT! Leave it to you to take the word of someone who was caught lying under oath.

Don't try to slime your way out of the hypocrisy in this case.


Present for me the evidence that the plaintiffs presented in court to prove that ibp manipulated the market with captive supply cattle.

BRING IT!

That is the heart of the issue.

You won't because that proof doesn't exist. All you can do is create the "ILLUSION" that it did exist.

The fact that cattle prices lower when a buyer has a portion of their needs filled and all other market factors remain the same is not market manipulation. Rather, it's a basic supply and demand function of markets. Only a complete idiot would consider a normal drop in the market from a decrease in demand as being market manipulation. Then again, I must consider the blaming source for such allegations.


Sandman: "Good grief! Didn't we just have a lengthy exchange on this last week? It went like this; Judge Strom says they didn't, SH says they did, SH is asked to provide proof, SH will not provide any proof. Par for this course. Let me ask you, exactly how many times do you figure you have to say something before it turns to truth?"

The proof was provided in court testimony. If you had any knowledge of this case you would know that.


Sandman: "They also testified that IBP/Tyson also had an illegitimate and illegal reason - one which IBP/Tyson would not dispute."

Hahaha!

I know how this works.

Make up numerous baseless unsupported allegations and if ibp/Tyson does not refute each one of them, "BY GOLLY THEY MUST BE GUILTY".


This debate goes on and on and on yet you Pickett defenders still have not presented one stitch of evidence to support the market manipulation conspiracy theory.

YOU GOT NOTHING and that's why you lost and now you guys are trying to come up with any cheesy excuse you can for losing.

Typical blamers!



~SH~
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
How much do they pay you SH? Is Tyson paying based on quantity or quality? If on a grid pricing that includes quality they got rookered.

I do not believe you have the capability of understanding the issues based on your comments on this board. Is that what everyone warned me about before?

You are basing your arguments on nothing.

If there was any price difference of the cash market and the "captive supplies" then all your arguments are empty. You make claims that there was a difference in the quality and the efficiency of captive supplies yet the evidence presented at trial was not there. The captive supply contracts did not have the merits you claim. Empty.

If you have any arguments that are worthy, please bring them on. So far I have heard nothing that can be easily refuted. Empty.

I look forward to you posting a real argument instead of the ones I have heard and refuted before. These cattle ranchers were railroaded and they want justice. I hope they get it.
 

ocm

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 16, 2005
Messages
779
Reaction score
0
Econ101 said:
How much do they pay you SH? Is Tyson paying based on quantity or quality? If on a grid pricing that includes quality they got rookered.

I do not believe you have the capability of understanding the issues based on your comments on this board. Is that what everyone warned me about before?

You are basing your arguments on nothing.

If there was any price difference of the cash market and the "captive supplies" then all your arguments are empty. You make claims that there was a difference in the quality and the efficiency of captive supplies yet the evidence presented at trial was not there. The captive supply contracts did not have the merits you claim. Empty.

If you have any arguments that are worthy, please bring them on. So far I have heard nothing that can be easily refuted. Empty.

I look forward to you posting a real argument instead of the ones I have heard and refuted before. These cattle ranchers were railroaded and they want justice. I hope they get it.


You will note that he did not address ANY of the items in the first post on this thread. I'm pretty sure that's because he can't. The first post in this thread remains unrefuted. Any reasonable person can understand why Taylor's "theories" were "untested" and why it made no difference on that point. ~SH~ is THE expert on ducking and dodging. Of course he will accuse eveybody else of it. It's like the mote and the beam.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Econ 101: "How much do they pay you SH?"

Hahaha, how completely predictable!

That should cover the "conspiring" aspect of this debate. LOL!

I rest that case.


Funny how there is no such thing as "truth", "fact", "proof", and "evidence" with a packer blaming conspiracy theorist such as yourself. If you want to believe something bad enough, then "BY GOLLY HOW YOU WANT TO SEE SOMETHING IS HOW IT MUST REALLY BE".

Did you catch those phone tappers yet? LOL!

Did you check the distant hills for scope reflections before you left the house? Haha!

"BEWARE OF THE CONSPIRING MIND"


Econ. 101: "Is Tyson paying based on quantity or quality?"

That would depend on the marketing conditions at that time (current or uncurrent cattle) and it would depend on their needs at the time.


Econ 101: " If on a grid pricing that includes quality they got rookered."

You don't know anything about "QUALITY" as it relates to fat cattle prices.

As I told you repeatedly, "quality" is relative to the choice/select spread at the time, the oversized carcass discounts at the time, the Y4 discounts at the time, and the affect of additional carcass weights (tonnage) on the market.

You don't even understand what I just said do you? Not surprising considering that you have an opinion on the Pickett case without even reading the court proceedings.

Ask any "CREDIBLE" feeder and they will tell you that having more choice cattle in the cash market that are overripe with a narrow choice select spread is nothing to sing praises about.

More proof of the ignorance of the plaintiffs and you.

I'll bet you didn't even know that there was a time during the Pickett era that "select" cattle were actually a premium to "choice" did you?

Figures!


Econ 101: "I do not believe you have the capability of understanding the issues based on your comments on this board. Is that what everyone warned me about before?"

Same-O, Same-O!

That would be the "DISCREDIT" D in the "4-D MO" of the typical packer blamer.

Deny, Discredit, Deceive, Divert!

First of all, you are the one who never read the court proceedings and you are the one who presents all the opinions without any facts to support them. Nobody has ever been rightfully convicted based solely on an "OPINION".

Do you honestly think for one minute that I care about what Sandman has to say about me??? He's as factually void as you are and proves it every time he posts.

Stick to the issues because your feeble discrediting attempts only impress your fellow blamers, not anyone with any intelligence.

As far as what anyone warned you about, if it wasn't stated here, it doesn't exist.


Econ 101: "You are basing your arguments on nothing."

Talk is so cheap with a packer blamer.

To the contrary it is you that cannot provide one stitch of evidence to support your market manipulation conspiracy theories. Instead, when you can't dazzle anyone with brilliance, you baffle them with bullsh*t. That's your MO!

Like every other packer blamer, you think the burden of proof falls on Tyson to prove their innocense. THAT'S WRONG! The burden of proof falls on the accuser, not the accused.

Where is your proof that Tyson manipulated markets?

I keep asking and asking and asking and you keep diverting and diverting and diverting by presenting another volley of meaningless little statements.


Econ 101: "If there was any price difference of the cash market and the "captive supplies" then all your arguments are empty. You make claims that there was a difference in the quality and the efficiency of captive supplies yet the evidence presented at trial was not there. The captive supply contracts did not have the merits you claim. Empty."

Listen to you Mr. I HAVE NEVER READ THE COURT PROCEEDINGS BUT THINK I UNDERSTAND THIS ISSUE.

I didn't make any claims that there was a difference between the quality and the efficiency of captive supplies. The defense made that argument but I didn't because "quality" is relative to the market conditions at that time.

You made that up assuming that I presented the same arguments the defense did. What a joke you are!

It's always only a matter of time before the lack of integrity of a packer blamer is revealed. You revealed it three times in this post alone:

1. Assuming that I was being paid.
2. Assuming that I had used the same "quality" arguments the defense had used.
3. Discrediting me without providing one stitch of evidence to support your position.

That says everything about you.

A difference in price and quality between captive supply cattle and cash cattle does not prove market manipulation either way.


Econ 101: "If you have any arguments that are worthy, please bring them on. So far I have heard nothing that can be easily refuted. Empty."

You have failed to present anything to contradict what I have stated let alone present anything that backs your market manipulation conspiracy theory.

You couldn't be any more empty handed.

The burden of proof falls on you to prove market manipulation. The plaintiffs couldn't do it and that is why they lost.


Econ 101: "cattle ranchers were railroaded and they want justice."

The packer blaming segment of cattle ranchers did not have a case to support their market manipulation conspiracy theories so now they have to save face by coming up with any cheesy excuse they can to justify yet another loss in the court room.


OCM: "You will note that he did not address ANY of the items in the first post on this thread. I'm pretty sure that's because he can't. The first post in this thread remains unrefuted. Any reasonable person can understand why Taylor's "theories" were "untested" and why it made no difference on that point."

None of the items in the first post on this thread were relevant to proving that Tyson/ibp manipulated markets with captive supply cattle.

If you want me to show you just how ridiculous Taylor's theories are, I'd be happy to oblige:


There has been much made of the so-called “untested theories” of Bob Taylor. These theories were what Taylor called the “causation mechanisms” of price manipulation.

There were six of them. They were:
1. Asymmetric information
2. Preferential deals for the “chosen ones” increases total supply thereby decreasing cash price
3. Base Price in marketing agreements is typically tied to a cash market price or an in-plant price
4. Packer control over timing of cash purchases combined with packer imposed narrow trading window
5. Exclusive arrangements preempt other buyers from accessing those cattle
6. Simple Logic: Slaughter decision by the captive feeder is made before price is discovered

When asked if he had tested each of these items Taylor truthfully said “no.” In point of fact, something the jury understood, none of these points has to be proven in order to show that Tyson manipulated the price. The proof for manipulation was in the economic numerical analysis.


When a packer or a feeder buys a portion of their cattle needs through a forward contract, naturally they would bid less agressively for the balance of their needs. That is a simple supply and demand equation as opposed to being a NEWLY DISCOVERED market manipulation conspiracy theory.

Formula and grid cattle, where a base price is based on the cash or futures market, is not captive supply. Any mention of formula and grid cattle has no relevance to the issue of captive supplies affecting cattle markets because those cattle are not owned or otherwise controlled by packers for more than 14 days prior to slaughter. There is no opportunity to manipulate markets when cattle are sold one week and delivered the next.

Besides, the base price of a formula could be higher or lower than this week's cash price defeating that argument further.

Packer control over timing of cash purchases combined with packer imposed narrow trading window ??????????

Packer purchasing of any cattle is determined by slaughtering schedule needs and boxed beef prices and boxed beef demand (orders). Always has been, always will be. The narrow pricing window is based on when the retail beef price and retail beef demand is established. Always has been, always will be. They set up next weeks slaughtering schedule when they know what their needs will be. This isn't rocket science.

Exclusive arrangements preempt other buyers from accessing those cattle ??????

WHAT?????????????

THE CAR I WANTED IS ALREADY SOLD THEREFORE THAT ACTION PREVENTED ME FROM ACCESSING THAT CAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Same ridiculous logic!

I was recently told by UBC that Behr paint products will be exclusively supplied by Home Depot. Does that mean that other companies should sue Home Depot because Home Depot chose to do business with Behr exclusively?

WAAAAAAAHHHHH!

Anyone should be able to do business with whoever they want without government intervention. That's what a "FREE" enterprise system is all about.

The alternative is "socialized cattle marketing" which is exactly what the ultimate goal is with this lawsuit.

It absolutely amazes me how the conspiring mind can transform a typical supply and demand situation into a market manipulation conspiracy theory.

Absolutely amazing!


Simple Logic: Slaughter decision by the captive feeder is made before price is discovered

I'm glad that Taylor at least recognizes his logic as being "simple".

"PLEASE SAVE THESE FEEDERS FROM THEIR OWN MARKETING ARRANGEMENTS"

"FORGIVE THEM FOR THEY KNOW NOT WHAT THEY DO"

Such arrogance!

If the price was not deemed as fair at the time of the arrangement, the feeder would not sell. It's that damn simple. Futures market contracts, which compose 75% of captive supply arrangements, are based on the futures market and a price is established. Formula and grid base prices, which are not captive supply arrangements, are based on this weeks weekly weighted average for next weeks delivery. In both cases, the price has been discovered before the agreement is made.

Taylor couldn't be more wrong on that.

Taylor's theories are irrelevant anyway. What the plaintiffs needed was "PROOF" of market manipulation, not theories.

Nobody has presented any proof to back the market manipulation conspiracy theory. Not here and not in court.

You guys could not be more empty handed.



~SH~
 

ocm

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 16, 2005
Messages
779
Reaction score
0
~SH~ said:
Nobody has presented any proof to back the market manipulation conspiracy theory. Not here and not in court.

Let's see what Judge Strom said when he overturned the jury ruling. What follows are exact quotes from his ruling.

Judge Strom said:
On February 17, 2004, the jury returned a verdict. The jury answered five interrogatories affirmatively on the verdict form, finding that plaintiffs established, by a preponderance of the evidence, that
(1) there is a nationwide market for fed cattle;
(2) defendant’s use of captive supply had an anticompetitive effect on the cash market for fed cattle;
(3) defendant lacked a legitimate business reason or competitive justification for using captive supply;
(4) defendant’s use of captive supply proximately caused the cash market price to be lower than it otherwise would have been; and
(5) defendant’s use of captive supply injured each and every member of plaintiffs’ class.


a. Legitimate Business Justifications for Using Captive Supplies
The Court finds that the evidence is insufficient to support a finding that defendant lacked a legitimate business justification for its use of captive supplies.1
[This covers jury interrogative (3) above]

b. Damages to All Class Members
The Court finds that the evidence does not support a finding that each member of plaintiffs’ class was injured.
[This covers jury interrogative (4) above]

c. Class-wide Damages
Plaintiffs’ evidence at trial failed to establish damages or, in the alternative, a formula from which damages could be calculated at a later claims procedure.
[This covers jury interrogative (5) above]

That leaves items (1) and (2) untouched. Although, according to Strom the jury had to find evidence for all 5 items in order to find for the plaintiff, in his official ruling Strom says that items (3), (4), and (5) didn't have sufficient evidence.

This decision overturned the jury's verdict, but judge Strom did not dispute items (1) and (2). Sufficient evidence was presented that a reasonable jury could find in the affirmative.

If you don't believe Judge Strom, there no hope for you.

But then again, you said
~SH said:
Taylor's theories are irrelevant anyway. What the plaintiffs needed was "PROOF" of market manipulation, not theories.

You got this part right, and Judge Strom agreed the evidence was presented, even if he didn't believe the evidence himself, he agreed it was presented.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
OCM: "This decision overturned the jury's verdict, but judge Strom did not dispute items (1) and (2)."

Wrong again OCM. The judge did address #2 in his ruling.


Since I am growing weary of your attempt to create the illusion that the Judge changed the direction of this trial I spent a little time today and dug up Judge Strom's actual ruling.

Here is the exact wording of Judge Strom's ruling:


"Plaintiffs apparently do not contest the fact, however, that the use of captive supply does indeed lead to a consistant and reliable supply of fed cattle. A packer does not violate the Packers and Stockyard Act when it's conduct is undertaken "in order to have a more reliable and efficient method of obtaining a supply of cattle." IBP, Inc. v. Glickman, 187 F.3d 974, 978 (8th Cir. 1999).

Defendant also produced evidence at trial that it was justified in aquiring cattle through captive supply transactions because it needed to do so to "meet the competition." Defendant argues that the evidence is undisputed that it would lose sources of cattle if it did not offer arrangements with cattle producers that its competitors such as Swift and Excel were offering.

Plaintiffs, however argue that this cannot qualify as a legitimate business justification because the defendant cannot "engage in illegal activity to compete with another who is breaking the law. One wrong is not set right by more wrongs." Filing No. 678 at 35, ll 82.

Plaintiffs argument on this issue is flawed. The evidence at trial was undisputed that if defendant was unable to offer captive supply arrangements to producers, it would have a much smaller pool of producers from which to buy cattle because those producers wishing to sell cattle via marketing agreements, formula sales, or forward contracts would sell their cattle to defendant's competitors. This would pose problems for the defendant, as it would have fewer cattle to choose from, and the quality and reliability of it's cattle supply would likely suffer.
Thus the defendant needed to use these sources of supply to be able to compete effectively with Excel, Swift, and other packers. Defendants use of captive supply arrangements is supported by the legitimate business justification of competing in the industry. Plaintiffs did not offer any evidence at trial suggesting that the defendant would be able to compete if the competitors were allowed to continue to use captive supply, but defendant was forced to discontinue such procurement methods.

See Swift & Co. v. Wallace, 105 F .2d 848 (7th Cir. 1939) (setting aside a finding of unreasonable preference" where the packer had extended allegedly preferential credit terms in bona fide response to its competition offering the same terms).

Although the record indicates the defendant's competitors do utilize marketing agreements, forward contracts, and other forms of captive supply transactions, it is signficant there there is no evidence before the Court to suggest that such conduct is illegal. The use of marketing agreements, joint ventures, and forward contracts, per se, violative of the Packers and Stockyard Act. Generally, such conduct only amounts to a violation of the Act if it constitutes an "unfair practice," involves price manipulation, or violates some other specific provision of the Act. There is no evidence that the defendant's competitors' use of these supply arrangements violated the Act, nor is there any evidence that the use of such arrangements is per se illegal.


NEXT!



~SH~
 

ocm

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 16, 2005
Messages
779
Reaction score
0
Have you ever taken a class in reading comprehension? :wink: :???:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
OCM: "Have you ever taken a class in reading comprehension?"

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!

Same-O, Same-O!


A packer does not violate the Packers and Stockyard Act when it's conduct is undertaken "in order to have a more reliable and efficient method of obtaining a supply of cattle." IBP, Inc. v. Glickman, 187 F.3d 974, 978 (8th Cir. 1999).

There is no evidence that the defendant's competitors' use of these supply arrangements violated the Act, nor is there any evidence that the use of such arrangements is per se illegal.

What's not to comprehend?

Do you really think you can make a case that Excel and Swift's use of captive supply arrangements is legal but Tyson's isn't? Hahaha!

Can't wait to hear this one..............

At this point, I would fully expect you packer blamers to try to make that argument in your desperate attempt to pull a rabbit out of a hat to justify your defeat.

Why don't you just wrap your wounds and accept defeat? You didn't have a case and you still don't.

If you think you got beat this time, wait until you and your Livestock Marketing Police brethren start trying to dictate to feeders what their marketing options will be. That fight will be bloodier. Write it down!



~SH~
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
~SH~ said:
OCM: "Have you ever taken a class in reading comprehension?"

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!

Same-O, Same-O!


A packer does not violate the Packers and Stockyard Act when it's conduct is undertaken "in order to have a more reliable and efficient method of obtaining a supply of cattle." IBP, Inc. v. Glickman, 187 F.3d 974, 978 (8th Cir. 1999).

There is no evidence that the defendant's competitors' use of these supply arrangements violated the Act, nor is there any evidence that the use of such arrangements is per se illegal.

What's not to comprehend?

Do you really think you can make a case that Excel and Swift's use of captive supply arrangements is legal but Tyson's isn't? Hahaha!

Can't wait to hear this one..............

At this point, I would fully expect you packer blamers to try to make that argument in your desperate attempt to pull a rabbit out of a hat to justify your defeat.

Why don't you just wrap your wounds and accept defeat? You didn't have a case and you still don't.

If you think you got beat this time, wait until you and your Livestock Marketing Police brethren start trying to dictate to feeders what their marketing options will be. That fight will be bloodier. Write it down!



~SH~

The defendent's competitors were not a subject of this lawsuit. When a person is caught cheating there is no defense that "everyone else was cheating and you did not catch them, so you can not punish me."
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Treed my ash Mike!

There was no proof of market manipulation from captive supplies from any of the major packers ANYWHERE, PERIOD.


Hey Mike, If the plaintiffs were not allowed to have entered into a captive supply arrangement with Tyson during the period of "ALLEGED" market manipulation, HOW COULD THEY POSSIBLY BE ELIGIBLE FOR DAMAGES????

You think about that one for awhile.



~SH~
 

Latest posts

Top