Dairymen, Inc* ease (Continued from Page Al) various markets therein in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act,” explained Beshore. The evidence in the District Court focused on D.L’s dealings with handlers who desired to purchase a'portion of their Grade. A milk needs from non-D.l. sources, including independent producers and other cooperatives. “In several instances, said Beshore, the other producers and competitors lost markets after D.I. instituted its contracts.” The reason 0.1. gave for im posing exlusive hauling contracts was to prevent the co-mingling of its members’ milk' with lower quality milk. The lower court previously dismissed the attempt to monopolize charge because the- Government failed to prove that D.l.’s anticompetitive practices rose to the. “predatory” level' and also failed to prove a dangerous probability that a monopoly would result from D.I. ’s practices. “The Capper-Volstead Act was harassment ... boycotts ... intended to permit agricultural coerced membership ... and producers to join together to discriminatory pricing.” However, process, prepare, and market a co-op can grow to any size by agricultural products without fear' additional membership as long as of prosecution under the antitrust no predatory conduct is involved, laws; It permits an agricultural in the case of 0.1., the Appeals cooperative to be formed solely to Court said the Government should fix the price at which its members not have been required by the products are sold. District Court to prove “Two or more cooperatives can “predatory" actions (an voluntartiy Join together solely for , ticompetitive practices without . the purpose of setting uniform any business justification). it The Distinct Court also found prices for their members. As a , “The offense of attempt to The SMITH CATTLEGDARD® Company’s "EASI-LICKIN" Centerline Increase the efficiency of your feeding operation with otir "EASI UCKIN" Feed bunks! We use the highest quality (5000 RSI) concrete tp give you a durable bunk with years of maintenance-free service. Because there are no corners where feed can build up and spoil, your livestock will eat more and produce more beef or milk for you. • Steel-Reinforced Precast Concrete • Smooth Sides Rounded Corners • Less Feed Wasted • Additional Farm Products The SMITH CATTUpGUARD® •12*, 14', 16' Lengths • 15,000. Installations : The Automatic Freeze-Proof Waterer •NO ENERGY NEEDED 100 Gallon Capacity Stock Tanks • Approved by Soil Conservation Service , • 200-Gallon Capacity Is. Licensed by EASI-SET 9 Industries that D.l.’s exclusive hauling contracts were over'restrictive. The minimum-two-year 1 mem bership - agreements, however, were found by the District Court to not be unreasonable. The Appeals - Court decided, however,’ that the Government contention, that-the distict court erred in holding that .the Capper- Volstead Act exempted the agricultural cooperative from liability for attempts to monopolize unless its anticompetitive conduct was deemed "predatory”, was sound. ALL FEED BUNKS: • Easy Installation and Maintenance • result, an agricultural cooperative can vsUfully attain a monopoly the voluntary enrollment of its members, or through a voluntary combination with other cooperatives. “The mere accretion ‘ of monopoly power through volun tary combination is immunized by the Capper-Volstead Act,” was the Appeals Court opinion, ' citing various legal cases including the recent < Fair dale Farms, Inc. versus Yankee Milk, Inc. In this case, the Second Circuit court “cautioned that a cooperative may neither acquire nor exercise monopoly power in a predatory fashion by the use of such tactics as picketing and FEED BUNKS Fenceline f 7 } . Please send me.information oh: □ cattleguards □ waterers □ feed bunks name. . address city phone CONCRETE 8-Foot Sections * i Bethel, Pa. 19507 (717) 933-4107 Route 1095 monopolize requires only thatlhe defendent has engaged in an ticompetitive conduct with- a specific intent to monopolize and that there was dangerous probability that the attempt would be successful,” they ruled. The Appeals Court remanded the case back to the Distlct Court to: determine if 0.1. used its supply and hauling contracts with the specific intent to monopolize; whether these contracts were intended to stifle competition or were intended to meet legitimate business purposes; determine the relevant geographic submarkets on the basis of commercially significant areas in which D.I. operated and in which D.L’s customers could turn to other suppliers.' “Once this factual determination is made it mil be possible to evaluate D.l. ever achieved a dangerous probability of success of monopoly in any significant market. “After the District Court determines 'the relevant geographic submarkets, it will be possible to determine whether the state zip Lancaster Farming, Saturday, October 17,1981—A33 v; -=• Broiler placements up 5 percent HARRISBURG Placements of broiler chicks in the Com monwealth during the week ending October 3 were 2,353,000, according to the Pennsylvania Crop Reporting Service. ' The placements were five - percent above the corresponding week ,a year earlier and three percent above the previous week. Average placements during the past nine weeks were slightly below a year ago. Placements in the 19 key poultry producing states were 73,202,000, three percent below the previous week but two percent above the same'week a year earlier. Average placements in the key states during the past nine weeks were nine percent above a year ago. Broiler-fryers slaughtered in Pennsylvania under federal in spection during the week ending September 23 totaled 2,211,000, with an average liveweight of 4.07 pounds. 1 full arrif con tracts used by D;t foreclose a substantial share of the market from its competitors and ‘tends to create a monopoly in any line of commerce’ in violation of Section 3 of the Clayton Act,” ruled the Appeals Court judges. According t0.D.1. spokesman Don. Davis, the milk cooperative has made no decision at the present time on whether to petition for a rehearing" in the Appeals Court or to appeal to the Supreme Court. “We are presently analyzing the decision in order to go forward with the best course of action,” he said. What impact will this court decision have on other farm cooperatives? Attorney Beshore states, “This decision iterates the principle that the Capper-Volstead Act does not provide total immunity to cooperatives from the federal antitrust laws and suggests that the courts will look closely at the intent surrounding alleged monopolistic practices to deter mine their legality.” Jim Krzyminski, associate general council of the National Council of Parmer Cooperatives, said be felt it was “too early to assess the impact. “Our initial reaction was alarm that this decision might undermine the Fairdale Farms decision. This court ruled there’s something less than predatory in anticompetitive practices which makes co-op’s susceptible to the Sherman An titrust Act. “As we have the opportunity to digest the decision further, it becomes apparent there are factual differences between DJ.’s case and Farms. We feel this leaves the Fairdale case un disturbed.” Jim Baarda of the Agricultural Cooperative Service echoed these feelings, voicing his concern over the different standards being applied to co-op behavior and monopolies. He too said this ruling wasmot in. technical conflict with the Fairdale case. “This ruling may open a few avenues and may give people who want to bring actions against cooperatives, some new ap proaches,” he said. “Whether it’s significant depends on what the District Court decides. “It’s not a disaster. However it may change the way things are done for awhile. But no co-op will ran out and change their specific operations because of this case.”
Significant historical Pennsylvania newspapers