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

Pickett ReVisited

Mike

Well-known member
Proving Anti-Competitive Conduct in the U.S. Courtroom: Economic Issues with the Courts' Opinions in Pickett v. Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc.

* Download the Paper
* Tell a Colleague
* Printing Tips

C. Robert Taylor, Auburn University, Alabama
Abstract
Four articles have been published in this Journal about the historic cattle trial, Pickett v Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc., in which Plaintiff cattlemen alleged that Tyson/IBP—the buyer—used captive (contracted) supplies of cattle to manipulate the cash market in violation of the 1921 Packers & Stockyards Act (PSA). The first article gave a Trial's eye view by David Domina who served as co-lead counsel representing Plaintiff cattlemen. Domina's article led to a published comment by Thomas Green who was the lead attorney representing Tyson during the Trial phase of lengthy legal proceedings. Green alleged that Domina's article was ``littered with rank speculation and baseless opinion." Domina countered that ``proof is not litter, and evidence is not rank speculation" and that Green's commentary was ``abusive." The adversarial exchange between Domina and Green was followed by another advocacy article in which William Rosales maintained that Pickett ``represents an opportunity for the judiciary to reform the meatpacking industry … (and) awaken the (PSA's) intended power to dethrone the economic kings of the meatpacking industry."

After a five week Trial in Federal Court, the Jury found Tyson/IBP guilty on all counts and assessed actual damages of $1.28 billion over 2/1994 -10/2002. Justice for Plaintiff cattlemen was short, as the Trial Judge set aside the Jury's verdict—a rare but not unprecedented legal action—and entered summary judgment for Tyson. The Eleventh Appellate Court subsequently sided with the Trial Judge. On March 24, 2006, the United States Supreme Court denied without comment Plaintiff's Petition to rehear the case, thus ending legal activities in Pickett v Tyson and effectively killing similar legal action pending against two other major beef packers, Excel (Cargill) and Swift (ConAgra).

This article emphasizes three significant and troubling legal and economic issues from the historic litigation: (1) the Courts' narrow and extreme interpretation of the antitrust rule-of-reason; (2) the Courts' endorsement of a ``meeting the competition" defense, and (3) whether the Courts inserted themselves above the Jury as fact-finders in the case, contrary to the 7th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that establishes the Jury as the only fact-finder in civil litigation.

In essence Pickett was filed under the Packers and Stockyards Act, tried under Sherman and Clayton antitrust law, and overturned, in part, under the Robinson-Patman Act.
Submitted: August 28, 2006 · Accepted: December 23, 2006 · Published: December 27, 2006
 

ocm

Well-known member
Mike said:
Proving Anti-Competitive Conduct in the U.S. Courtroom: Economic Issues with the Courts' Opinions in Pickett v. Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc.

* Download the Paper
* Tell a Colleague
* Printing Tips

C. Robert Taylor, Auburn University, Alabama
Abstract
Four articles have been published in this Journal about the historic cattle trial, Pickett v Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc., in which Plaintiff cattlemen alleged that Tyson/IBP—the buyer—used captive (contracted) supplies of cattle to manipulate the cash market in violation of the 1921 Packers & Stockyards Act (PSA). The first article gave a Trial's eye view by David Domina who served as co-lead counsel representing Plaintiff cattlemen. Domina's article led to a published comment by Thomas Green who was the lead attorney representing Tyson during the Trial phase of lengthy legal proceedings. Green alleged that Domina's article was ``littered with rank speculation and baseless opinion." Domina countered that ``proof is not litter, and evidence is not rank speculation" and that Green's commentary was ``abusive." The adversarial exchange between Domina and Green was followed by another advocacy article in which William Rosales maintained that Pickett ``represents an opportunity for the judiciary to reform the meatpacking industry … (and) awaken the (PSA's) intended power to dethrone the economic kings of the meatpacking industry."

After a five week Trial in Federal Court, the Jury found Tyson/IBP guilty on all counts and assessed actual damages of $1.28 billion over 2/1994 -10/2002. Justice for Plaintiff cattlemen was short, as the Trial Judge set aside the Jury's verdict—a rare but not unprecedented legal action—and entered summary judgment for Tyson. The Eleventh Appellate Court subsequently sided with the Trial Judge. On March 24, 2006, the United States Supreme Court denied without comment Plaintiff's Petition to rehear the case, thus ending legal activities in Pickett v Tyson and effectively killing similar legal action pending against two other major beef packers, Excel (Cargill) and Swift (ConAgra).

This article emphasizes three significant and troubling legal and economic issues from the historic litigation: (1) the Courts' narrow and extreme interpretation of the antitrust rule-of-reason; (2) the Courts' endorsement of a ``meeting the competition" defense, and (3) whether the Courts inserted themselves above the Jury as fact-finders in the case, contrary to the 7th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that establishes the Jury as the only fact-finder in civil litigation.

In essence Pickett was filed under the Packers and Stockyards Act, tried under Sherman and Clayton antitrust law, and overturned, in part, under the Robinson-Patman Act.
Submitted: August 28, 2006 · Accepted: December 23, 2006 · Published: December 27, 2006

I read this entire article. It was very interesting. Taylor presented a brief summary of it. It appears in a peer reviewed journal. Azzam is the editor. He (Azzam) is going to make it required reading for his students.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
ocm: "Azzam is the editor. He (Azzam) is going to make it required reading for his students."

Azzam's students are more than likely objective enough to read the judge's ruling so they can see for themselves that the plaintiffs didn't have a case. What student would be so narrow minded as to simply read the losing side's spin on the decision?

Most students, when presented will all the information, would reach the same conclusion Judge Strom and the 11th circuit reached.

If they really wanted to form an objective opinion, they would read the testimony for themselves and see how Callicrate lied under oath.

There was no proof of market manipulation or a PSA violation, period.


~SH~
 

Mike

Well-known member
Judge Strom himself acknowledged that there WAS market manipulation but gave it a pass in the name of "Competition".

"This article emphasizes three significant and troubling legal and economic issues from the historic litigation: (1) the Courts' narrow and extreme interpretation of the antitrust rule-of-reason; (2) the Courts' endorsement of a ``meeting the competition" defense, and (3) whether the Courts inserted themselves above the Jury as fact-finders in the case, contrary to the 7th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that establishes the Jury as the only fact-finder in civil litigation."
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Strom more or less said you could violate PSA as long as you were doing it in the spritit of competition. He gave the packers a free pass around PSA. All they have to do is whisper the password, "competition", and they are free to violate the law all they want.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Mike: "Judge Strom himself acknowledged that there WAS market manipulation but gave it a pass in the name of "Competition"."

That is absolutely untrue.

Judge Strom did not acknowledge market manipulation.


~SH~
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sandcheska: "Strom more or less said you could violate PSA as long as you were doing it in the spritit of competition. He gave the packers a free pass around PSA. All they have to do is whisper the password, "competition", and they are free to violate the law all they want."

That is an outright lie.

There was absolutely no proof of market manipulation presented in pickett vs. ibp. Tyson dropping their price in the cash market to reflect their purchases in the formula market was not market manipulation. Tyson is not "THE MARKET", Tyson is "A MARKET" within "THE MARKET".

You've been asked to provide the proof of market manipulation numerous times Sandcheska and all you can do is dance and divert, JUST LIKE ALWAYS.

There was no proof of market manipulation, PERIOD.

To claim that there was WITHOUT PROOF is just one more lie from you. Par for your "factually void" course.



~SH~
 

Mike

Well-known member
""In sum, while Pickett presented evidence at trial that Tyson's marketing agreements have decreased the price of cattle on the cash market and on the market as a whole, he did not present any evidence from which a reasonable jury could conclude that Tyson lacked pro-competitive justifications for using agreements."
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Mike said:
""In sum, while Pickett presented evidence at trial that Tyson's marketing agreements have decreased the price of cattle on the cash market and on the market as a whole, he did not present any evidence from which a reasonable jury could conclude that Tyson lacked pro-competitive justifications for using agreements."

In layman's terms; "Pickett showed that Tyson's BS have lowered cattle prices over the entire market. However, Tyson can do that because they they can flaunt this law as long as they do it to compete with other packers."
 

Mike

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
Mike said:
""In sum, while Pickett presented evidence at trial that Tyson's marketing agreements have decreased the price of cattle on the cash market and on the market as a whole, he did not present any evidence from which a reasonable jury could conclude that Tyson lacked pro-competitive justifications for using agreements."

In layman's terms; "Pickett showed that Tyson's BS have lowered cattle prices over the entire market. However, Tyson can do that because they they can flaunt this law as long as they do it to compete with other packers."

"Page 12:"Pickett contends he has established unfairness and price control or manipulation under the PSA by proving that Tyson's marketing agreements caused the cash-market, and the overall price, for cattle to be lower than it otherwise would be. If that were all Pickett were required to prove he might win, because there was evidence at trial to the jury's finding that the use of marketing agreements has resulted in lower prices for cattle both on the cash market and the market as a whole."
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
SH, "There was no proof of market manipulation or a PSA violation, period. "

Judge Strom, "...there was evidence at trial to the jury's finding that the use of marketing agreements has resulted in lower prices for cattle both on the cash market and the market as a whole."
 

Mike

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
SH, "There was no proof of market manipulation or a PSA violation, period. "
Judge Strom, "...there was evidence at trial to the jury's finding that the use of marketing agreements has resulted in lower prices for cattle both on the cash market and the market as a whole."


Pickett was filed under the Packers and Stockyards Act, tried under Sherman and Clayton antitrust law, and overturned, in part, under the Robinson-Patman Act.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
"In sum, while Pickett presented evidence at trial that Tyson's marketing agreements have decreased the price of cattle on the cash market and on the market as a whole, he did not present any evidence from which a reasonable jury could conclude that Tyson lacked pro-competitive justifications for using agreements."


Who made this statement Mike?


First, Tyson dropping their price in the cash market to reflect their purchases in the formula market is not market manipulation. Never has been and never will be. Tyson is not "THE MARKET", Tyson is "A MARKET" within "THE MARKET". If Tyson drops their price in the cash market to reflect their purchases in the formula market, SELLERS CAN SELL TO EXCEL, SWIFT, AND USPB.

Second, show me the evidence that suggested that Tyson's actions, REFLECTING ONLY 32% OF THE TOTAL KILL, would affect the entire market. That's absolutely untrue.


Sandcheska: "In layman's terms; "Pickett showed that Tyson's BS have lowered cattle prices over the entire market."

Absolutely untrue!

BRING THE PROOF!

If Tyson could lower cattle prices over the entire market once, they could do it all the time and fat cattle prices would never have reached $116.

Where's your argument about all the factors that affect cattle prices now you damn hypocrite??? Your hypocrisy is almost beyond belief.

When I point out the packer blamers claim that packer concentration and captive supplies lead to lower cattle prices in light of the highest feeder cattle prices ever recorded, YOU ASK IF THOSE ARE THE ONLY FACTORS THAT AFFECT CATTLE PRICES. When Pickett claims that Tyson's formula purchases lowered overall cattle prices, YOU DON'T EVEN CONSIDER ALL THE FACTORS THAT AFFECT CATTLE PRICES.

You're hypocrisy has reached an all time low. You are such a snake.


"Page 12:"Pickett contends he has established unfairness and price control or manipulation under the PSA by proving that Tyson's marketing agreements caused the cash-market, and the overall price, for cattle to be lower than it otherwise would be. If that were all Pickett were required to prove he might win, because there was evidence at trial to the jury's finding that the use of marketing agreements has resulted in lower prices for cattle both on the cash market and the market as a whole."


Tyson dropping their price in the cash market to reflect their purchases in the formula market is not market manipulation because Tyson is not "THE MARKET". Tyson is "A MARKET" within "THE MARKET".

Bring me the proof that Tyson's formula cattle purchases resulted in lower prices on the market as a whole.

TALK IS CHEAP!

Bring the proof!

Anyone with any common sense would know that if Tyson's actions reflected the entire market ONCE, they could do it all the time and any time. It's absolutely untrue. Tyson's needs being filled in the formula market means there is less cattle available in the cash market for Excel, Swift, and USPB.


Show me the breakdown where Pickett isolated Tyson's marketing agreements as being the sole driver behind falling cash cattle prices WITHOUT LOOKING AT LOWER BOXED BEEF PRICES or other market factors.

What a crock!

WHAT I WANT TO BELIEVE....

by Mike and Sandcheska


FACTS BE DAMNED!


~SH~
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Mike: "Pickett was filed under the Packers and Stockyards Act, tried under Sherman and Clayton antitrust law, and overturned, in part, under the Robinson-Patman Act."

Just repeating what you want to believe.

Judge Strom said there was no violation of the PSA in his ruling, PERIOD!

This is just more packer blaming sore loser rhetoric.


Overturned by Judge Strom.
Upheld by the 11th circuit.
Refused by the Surpreme Court.

YOU PACKER BLAMERS LOST!


~SH~
 

Mike

Well-known member
SH: Bring me the proof that Tyson's formula cattle purchases resulted in lower prices on the market as a whole.

I guess you'll need to take this up with the Judge, he's the one who said it:

"because there was evidence at trial to the jury's finding that the use of marketing agreements has resulted in lower prices for cattle both on the cash market and the market as a whole."

:lol: :shock: :lol: :shock:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Mike,

Just think for yourself here. Tell me how Tyson's actions can lower cattle markets AS A WHOLE when Tyson, Swift, and USPB are competing for the remaining cattle? Does that make sense in your world? Tell me what factors allow Tyson's actions to negatively impact THE ENTIRE CATTLE MARKET at some times and not at others. Does that make sense to you?

If there was evidence presented at the trial to suggest that Tyson's actions impacted the entire cattle market, WHY CAN'T ANY OF YOU PACKER BLAMERS PROVIDE THAT EVIDENCE???

I would think you would be shouting that evidence from the mountain tops.

I don't believe there was any evidence to suggest that Tyson's actions would lead to lower OVERALL CATTLE PRICES because that doesn't make any sense. Tyson cannot control the overall cattle market owning less than 32% of the market share with 3 main competitors in the same market for the same cattle. That defies all logic.


~SH~
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Just as well move on, Mike. That idiot didn't figure it out the first time, he won't figure it out this time. "Facts be damned " :roll:
 

Mike

Well-known member
~SH~ said:
Mike,

Just think for yourself here. Tell me how Tyson's actions can lower cattle markets AS A WHOLE when Tyson, Swift, and USPB are competing for the remaining cattle? Does that make sense in your world? Tell me what factors allow Tyson's actions to negatively impact THE ENTIRE CATTLE MARKET at some times and not at others. Does that make sense to you?

If there was evidence presented at the trial to suggest that Tyson's actions impacted the entire cattle market, WHY CAN'T ANY OF YOU PACKER BLAMERS PROVIDE THAT EVIDENCE???

I would think you would be shouting that evidence from the mountain tops.

I don't believe there was any evidence to suggest that Tyson's actions would lead to lower OVERALL CATTLE PRICES because that doesn't make any sense. Tyson cannot control the overall cattle market owning less than 32% of the market share with 3 main competitors in the same market for the same cattle. That defies all logic.


~SH~

Lowering prices on the overall market was not the issue in Pickett, in the end game.

According to Strom and the Appellate Court, Pickett had to prove Tyson lacked "Pro-Competitive" justifications for using marketing agreements.

Read this very slowly:
"""In sum, while Pickett presented evidence at trial that Tyson's marketing agreements have decreased the price of cattle on the cash market and on the market as a whole, he did not present any evidence from which a reasonable jury could conclude that Tyson lacked pro-competitive justifications for using agreements."
 

HAY MAKER

Well-known member
~SH~ said:
Mike,

Just think for yourself here. Tell me how Tyson's actions can lower cattle markets AS A WHOLE when Tyson, Swift, and USPB are competing for the remaining cattle? Does that make sense in your world? Tell me what factors allow Tyson's actions to negatively impact THE ENTIRE CATTLE MARKET at some times and not at others. Does that make sense to you?

If there was evidence presented at the trial to suggest that Tyson's actions impacted the entire cattle market, WHY CAN'T ANY OF YOU PACKER BLAMERS PROVIDE THAT EVIDENCE???

I would think you would be shouting that evidence from the mountain tops.

I don't believe there was any evidence to suggest that Tyson's actions would lead to lower OVERALL CATTLE PRICES because that doesn't make any sense. Tyson cannot control the overall cattle market owning less than 32% of the market share with 3 main competitors in the same market for the same cattle. That defies all logic.


~SH~

They did it with market power,and you know it,I sometimes wonder how some one like you can claim to be so smart,and be so damned ignorant
Im gonna let you in on a little secret,because its obvious something you can not figure out on your own.
The pickett trial was never about money,it was always about fairness,cattle men did not lose the pickett case they won,because it assures the Captive Supply Reform Reform Act will become law in the near future...............good luck
 
Top