is part of the Division of Informa PLC

This site is operated by a business or businesses owned by Informa PLC and all copyright resides with them. Informa PLC's registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. Registered in England and Wales. Number 8860726.

  • American Agriculturist
  • Beef Producer
  • Corn and Soybean Digest
  • Dakota Farmer
  • Delta Farm Press
  • Farm Futures
  • Farm Industry news
  • Indiana Prairie Farmer
  • Kansas Farmer
  • Michigan Farmer
  • Missouri Ruralist
  • Nebraska Farmer
  • Ohio Farmer
  • Prairie Farmer
  • Southeast Farm Press
  • Southwest Farm Press
  • The Farmer
  • Wallaces Farmer
  • Western Farm Press
  • Western Farmer Stockman
  • Wisconsin Agriculturist

Reversal of Packer Price Reporting Ruling

Appeals court overturns lower court ruling on cattle price manipulation.

Tuesday the U.S. Eight Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that three meat packers did not manipulate cattle prices in 2001 and told a district court to reverse its previous ruling and enter a judgment for the packers. Three independent cattle producers sued Cargill Meat Solutions, Swift & Co. (now JBS Swift Group) and Tyson Foods Inc. under Sections 202 (a) and (e) of the Packers & Stockyards Act.

At issue was a six-week period from April 2 to May 11, 2001, following the implementation of mandatory price reporting by the U.S. Department of Agriculture in which USDA erroneously included "no-roll" beef in the beef cutout, effectively making the cutout lower valued than it was. Cattle feeders consequently marketed their cattle for less than they would have otherwise sold them because beef demand and prices seemed to have weakened.

In April 2006, Judge Charles Kornmann ruled in favor of the cattle producers and entered a judgment finding the packers several million dollars. The case was appealed to the circuit, which last week said the plaintiffs did not demonstrate that the packers "intentionally committed unlawful conduct," that would be necessary to violate the sections of the PSA. The circuit said it did not need to remand the case for a new trial because the "evidence was not sufficient to support the jury verdict."

Source: Feedstuffs

Hide comments

Comments

  • Allowed HTML tags: <em> <strong> <blockquote> <br> <p>

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Publish