Sandhusker
Well-known member
An answer to Judge Strom's requirement that Pickett had to show Tyson lacked a legitimate reason for using marketing agreements.
Judge Strom, "If there is evidence from which a jury reasonably could find that none of Tyson's asserted justifications are real, that each is pretectual, Pickett wins. Otherwise Tyson wins.
Put differenlty, any valid business justification for the marketing agreements in issue would defeat pickett's PSA relief, regardless of whether a less harmful or restrictive means of accomplishing the alleged justification might exist or could be found. Under this framework, it was immaterial that the jury found (a) that Pickett's cattle were higher quality than the cattle from Tyson't captive souce, yet (b) because of the long-term marketing agreements, Pickett received a lower price."
Sandhusker, "Does it look like Tyson's use of marketing agreements is working like they said? Regardless, no other court has held the opinion that a legitimate purpose excuses any improprieties."
The Eleventh Circuit ruled below that a plaintiff must show that a defendant's conduct was absolutely anti-competitive to establish a PSA violation. Thus, any business justification for challenged business behavior would constitute a "saving grace" and defeat a plaintiff's claim for relief. Thus, the eleventh Circuit held that the Act "requires a plaintiff to show an adverse effect on competition.
The Supreme Court takes another angle. The Supreme Court has said in considering whether business conduct is impermissible, "it is relevant to consider its impact on consuers and whether it has impaired competiton in an unnecessarily restrictive way." Emphasis added Sandhusker, "Note, there is no back door of any legitimate uses."
In a ruling against Armour, the Seventh Circuit said, "While Section 202(a) of the Packers and Stockyards Act may be broader than antecedent antitrust legislation," it does not allow:....condemnig practices which are neither deceptive nor injurious to competition nor indended to be so... Even if predatory intent is absent, Armour's coupon program might violate Section 202(a) if it would probaby result in competitive injury, tend to restrain trade or create a monopoly.
Sandhusker, "Note, Armour probably had a legitimate use for their coupon program - the court didn't even consider it."
OK, packer hacks. Whaddusay now?
Judge Strom, "If there is evidence from which a jury reasonably could find that none of Tyson's asserted justifications are real, that each is pretectual, Pickett wins. Otherwise Tyson wins.
Put differenlty, any valid business justification for the marketing agreements in issue would defeat pickett's PSA relief, regardless of whether a less harmful or restrictive means of accomplishing the alleged justification might exist or could be found. Under this framework, it was immaterial that the jury found (a) that Pickett's cattle were higher quality than the cattle from Tyson't captive souce, yet (b) because of the long-term marketing agreements, Pickett received a lower price."
Sandhusker, "Does it look like Tyson's use of marketing agreements is working like they said? Regardless, no other court has held the opinion that a legitimate purpose excuses any improprieties."
The Eleventh Circuit ruled below that a plaintiff must show that a defendant's conduct was absolutely anti-competitive to establish a PSA violation. Thus, any business justification for challenged business behavior would constitute a "saving grace" and defeat a plaintiff's claim for relief. Thus, the eleventh Circuit held that the Act "requires a plaintiff to show an adverse effect on competition.
The Supreme Court takes another angle. The Supreme Court has said in considering whether business conduct is impermissible, "it is relevant to consider its impact on consuers and whether it has impaired competiton in an unnecessarily restrictive way." Emphasis added Sandhusker, "Note, there is no back door of any legitimate uses."
In a ruling against Armour, the Seventh Circuit said, "While Section 202(a) of the Packers and Stockyards Act may be broader than antecedent antitrust legislation," it does not allow:....condemnig practices which are neither deceptive nor injurious to competition nor indended to be so... Even if predatory intent is absent, Armour's coupon program might violate Section 202(a) if it would probaby result in competitive injury, tend to restrain trade or create a monopoly.
Sandhusker, "Note, Armour probably had a legitimate use for their coupon program - the court didn't even consider it."
OK, packer hacks. Whaddusay now?