Sandhusker: "As expected, you respond with your signature rant and juvinile name-calling that we all find so endearing of you."
WE ALL?????
Who do you think you speak for besides a handful of other packer blamers that can't think for themselves? You've already defined yourself totally when you accepted Agman's word and thanked him for his honesty on facts that supported your bias and questioned him for facts that didn't support your bias when you had no data either way. That totally defined who you are.
You are right, the math here is simply. Assuming that dropping your price in the cash market as your needs are met in the formula and grid market is considered "market manipulation", then the plaintiffs would only be eligible for a dollar figure between $1 and $26 per head. IBP's profits for that period of time was determined to be $26 per head. There is no way in hell, in this circumstance, that the plaintiffs were entitled to more than ibp's profits for that time period. That is absolute insanity unless you are really so full of blame that you believe IBP should operate at a loss to support packer parasites.
Your elementary math does not apply to this situation because the manipulation bracket, IF IT EXISTED, would have to fall between $1 and $26 per head because no reasonable judge or jury would expect IBP to operate at a loss.
Leave it to you to defend the indefensible. I would expect nothing less from you.
Kindergarten: "SH, If IBP would have been caught right away and not been allowed to discriminate against the cash market over the 7 years was it? time period, the damages probably would not have been over their profits. They "embezzled" that amount over a long period of time from the cattle producers. Just because they gave some of that "money" away from their actions to other market participants (not producers) doesn't mean their dollar amount in damages should reflect that give away."
That is another lie that you cannot prove. You just make it up as you go.
THE PERIOD OF TIME WAS DEFINED IN THE CASE. You can't go outside of that period of time and "ASSUME" what might have happened.
There is no way in hell that the plaintiffs were entitled to any more than $26 per head in this case. There was no logic behind the damages which is exactly why Taylor and the jury disagreed and could not explain how they derived at those damages. RED FLAG!!!!!
You got nothing here.
Sandman: "Ever hear of a company called Enron?"
TOTALLY DIFFERENT CIRCUMSTANCES!
Another classic Sandman apples to watermelons comparison.
Sandman: "Damages are just that, damages. Ask someone to explain that to you."
That's right, damages are damages and those damages could not be more than ibp's profits for that time period.
Keep showing the world how ignorant you both are.
~SH~