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

Ranchers.net

Pickett sued Tyson under the Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921, specifically sections (a) and (c). They are as follows;

PSA Section 202 (a) states; It shall be unlawful for any packer or swine contractor with respect to livestock, meats, meat food products, or livestock products in unmanufactured form, or for any live poultry dealer with respect to live poultry, to engage in or use any unfair, unjustly discriminatory, or deceptive practice or device.
(c) reads; Engage in any course of business or do any act for the purpose or with the effect of manipulating or controlling prices,...

A jury found, among other things that Tyson's use of marketing agreements proximately caused the cash market price to be lower than it otherwise would of been and that these same marketing agreements injured each and every member of the plaintiff's class.

Tyson did not dispute these findings of the jury, instead they claimed they have legitimate business use for these agreements. (I guess as long as you hunt ducks with your shotgun, armed robbery is legitimized). They also contended that PSA was meant as a protection against anti-competitive practices by meatpackers. They also argued that Pickett must establish more than that the use of marketing agreements have decreased the price of cattle. (notice that they do not dispute that they have manipulated prices, only that they have other reasons to use these agreements and that decreasing prices doesn't matter, as long as there are no pro-competitive justifications. They don't dispute the crime, only jurisdiction)

Judge Strom agreed with Tyson and stated that "in order to succeed on a claim under the PSA, a plaintiff must show that the defendant's unfair, discriminatory or deceptive practice adversely affects or is likely to adversely affect competition."

I encourage everybody to read the unlawful practices under PSA and then ask yourselves if what Tyson argued, and Judge Strom agreed on makes any sense? NOWHERE under the list of unlawful practices under the act is the word "competition".

Our pro-packer contingent on the board claims a great victory, but after reading Tyson's and Judge Strom's comments, does anybody actually believe that it mattered if Tyson manipulated markets and hurt Pickett? Did the ruling really have anything to do with damages to Pickett?
Top