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

Supreme Court Hands Poultry Co.s Another Tactical Setback

Help Support Ranchers.net:

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
Someone in the court system is watching Tyson carefully. Agman, they are getting a real feel for them.



Posted on Wed, Feb. 22, 2006
U.S. Supreme Court rejects Ark. attempt to sue Oklahoma
ANDREW DeMILLO
Associated Press

LITTLE ROCK - Arkansas' attempt to sue Oklahoma in a dispute over chicken litter and water pollution has been rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court, which turned away the request without comment on Tuesday.

"The Supreme Court's decision is disappointing, but not surprising," Arkansas Attorney General Mike Beebe said. "It is very rare for the United States Supreme Court to take original jurisdiction over controversies between two states, but we felt the threat to Arkansas state sovereignty and to our citizens warranted the effort to face the odds and ask for the court's intervention."

Arkansas petitioned the court last year for permission to sue its neighbor state under the Arkansas River Basin Compact. Beebe said an Oklahoma lawsuit in federal court in Tulsa would hurt his state's $2 billion poultry industry. He argued that the disagreement was "a state sovereignty issue."

Attorney general spokesman Matt DeCample said Beebe and staff lawyers would decide what their next step will be.

Oklahoma filed the lawsuit last June, after four years of failed negotiations, alleging that Arkansas poultry companies were legally responsible for pollution of the Illinois River watershed. Oklahoma's lawsuit argues that state and federal laws are being violated by improper disposal of poultry waste.

Oklahoma Attorney General Drew Edmondson praised the court's decision. He said it stops a delaying tactic on behalf of Arkansas and the state's poultry companies.

"I appreciate the court for recognizing that this ploy was without merit and dismissing it outright," Edmondson said. "The companies' legal, political and public relations tricks will neither distract nor deter us."

Tuesday, Beebe repeated his claim that Oklahoma is trying to impose its laws on another state.

"Oklahoma's lawsuit makes this issue less about the environment, and more about money," Beebe said. "It threatens to slow or stop the progress already made by both states toward improving water quality through cooperative efforts."

In its filings, Oklahoma has said Arkansas' proposed lawsuit "is nothing more than an attempt by Arkansas to use its status as a state to shield private companies from being held liable for their intentional pollution of Oklahoma's natural resources.

"Oklahoma's lawsuit is not a dispute with the State of Arkansas, despite Arkansas' repeated assertions to the contrary. Oklahoma has not sued Arkansas and Oklahoma's lawsuit does not challenge the adequacy of Arkansas laws."

The lawsuit named as defendants Cargill Inc. of Minneapolis; Cobb-Vantress Inc. and Simmons Foods, both of Siloam Springs; George's Inc. of Springdale; Peterson Farms Inc. of Decatur; Tyson Foods Inc. of Springdale; Willow Brook Foods of Springfield, Mo.; and Cal-Maine Foods Inc. of Jackson, Miss.
 

Mike

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
28,480
Reaction score
0
Location
Montgomery, Al
In the enforcement action in April, the SEC alleged that family and friends of former Tyson Foods chairman and chief executive Donald Tyson regularly flew on company aircraft without him on board. From 1997 to 2001, the company failed to disclose more than $1 million of perquisites for Tyson, the SEC said. Without admitting or denying wrongdoing, the company agreed to pay a $1.5 million penalty, and the former chairman agreed to pay a $700,000 penalty.

Among other things, the SEC alleged in a complaint that the company "incorrectly valued Mr. Tyson's personal aircraft usage using the tax . . . method instead of the aggregate incremental cost method required by" SEC reporting standards.

Despite the regulatory scrutiny, Tyson Foods, which disclosed the SEC investigation last year, continued to use the tax formula to value aircraft usage in a report filed in February. Spokesmen for Tyson Foods declined to comment, saying the company's settlement with the agency prevented them from doing so.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
After the SEC made them pay that money back this is what they did:



Tyson Foods, the large meat processor, said yesterday that the Securities and Exchange Commission was investigating benefits provided to company officers, including the chief executive, John H. Tyson. The commission is also seeking information about bonuses provided to Don Tyson, the former senior chairman, the company said. A Tyson spokesman, Ed Nicholson, said the company had no comment on the investigation beyond the release. Independent directors have reviewed the matter, and Tyson Foods "does not believe that the amounts involved are material to the company's financial position or results of operations," Tyson said in the statement.
Summary of Results: John H. Tyson, the 50-year-old grandson of the company's founder, John Tyson, was paid $993,590 in salary in 2003 and received a $2.5 million bonus, according to a proxy statement filed with the commission. Mr. Tyson, who became chairman in 1998 and chief executive in 2000, also received $325,286 in other annual compensation, including $112,306 for travel and entertainment. John H. Tyson's total compensation more than doubled to $20.9 million, including restricted stock, in the year ended September from a year ago.
 

agman

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,664
Reaction score
0
Location
Denver, CO
Econ101 said:
Someone in the court system is watching Tyson carefully. Agman, they are getting a real feel for them.



Posted on Wed, Feb. 22, 2006
U.S. Supreme Court rejects Ark. attempt to sue Oklahoma
ANDREW DeMILLO
Associated Press

LITTLE ROCK - Arkansas' attempt to sue Oklahoma in a dispute over chicken litter and water pollution has been rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court, which turned away the request without comment on Tuesday.

"The Supreme Court's decision is disappointing, but not surprising," Arkansas Attorney General Mike Beebe said. "It is very rare for the United States Supreme Court to take original jurisdiction over controversies between two states, but we felt the threat to Arkansas state sovereignty and to our citizens warranted the effort to face the odds and ask for the court's intervention."

Arkansas petitioned the court last year for permission to sue its neighbor state under the Arkansas River Basin Compact. Beebe said an Oklahoma lawsuit in federal court in Tulsa would hurt his state's $2 billion poultry industry. He argued that the disagreement was "a state sovereignty issue."

Attorney general spokesman Matt DeCample said Beebe and staff lawyers would decide what their next step will be.

Oklahoma filed the lawsuit last June, after four years of failed negotiations, alleging that Arkansas poultry companies were legally responsible for pollution of the Illinois River watershed. Oklahoma's lawsuit argues that state and federal laws are being violated by improper disposal of poultry waste.

Oklahoma Attorney General Drew Edmondson praised the court's decision. He said it stops a delaying tactic on behalf of Arkansas and the state's poultry companies.

"I appreciate the court for recognizing that this ploy was without merit and dismissing it outright," Edmondson said. "The companies' legal, political and public relations tricks will neither distract nor deter us."

Tuesday, Beebe repeated his claim that Oklahoma is trying to impose its laws on another state.

"Oklahoma's lawsuit makes this issue less about the environment, and more about money," Beebe said. "It threatens to slow or stop the progress already made by both states toward improving water quality through cooperative efforts."

In its filings, Oklahoma has said Arkansas' proposed lawsuit "is nothing more than an attempt by Arkansas to use its status as a state to shield private companies from being held liable for their intentional pollution of Oklahoma's natural resources.

"Oklahoma's lawsuit is not a dispute with the State of Arkansas, despite Arkansas' repeated assertions to the contrary. Oklahoma has not sued Arkansas and Oklahoma's lawsuit does not challenge the adequacy of Arkansas laws."

The lawsuit named as defendants Cargill Inc. of Minneapolis; Cobb-Vantress Inc. and Simmons Foods, both of Siloam Springs; George's Inc. of Springdale; Peterson Farms Inc. of Decatur; Tyson Foods Inc. of Springdale; Willow Brook Foods of Springfield, Mo.; and Cal-Maine Foods Inc. of Jackson, Miss.

Where have you been Conman? This is old stuff and if they are guilty then I am all for whatever the court subjects them to. I am for that on every issue but being charged does not establish guilt. It looks like there are alot more folks involved then Tyson. If they are all guilty or innocent let the courts decide or a judge if the jury does not understand the testimony as in the Pickett case.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
Agman, it is just all the legal tricks employed. Tyson has the money to play these games ad nauseum. Individual farmers/ranchers do not. You criticize Mike C. from filing against the USDA's AMS and instead going right after the source of the problem -- the packers with your little "oops". The USDA is just acting as a front of credibilty for the packer backed actions they represent. That wall of credibility is crumbling. All you have to say is "oops". Johannes acting as a figurehead for agribusiness is becoming more and more apparent. At least Edmonson is smart enough not to buy it.

Why don't you comment on the OIG reports, Agman?
 

Latest posts

Top