Flying the Co-op
Though farmer-run co-ops have some antitrust immunity, various partnerships open them up for investigation.
December 31, 2009 at 07:00 PM
3 minute read
To read about how the DOJ and USDA have been cracking down on anti-competitive behavior in the agricultural arena, click here.
The Capper-Volstead Act of 1922, known to famers as the Magna Carta of cooperatives, authorizes farmers to collectively process and distribute their own crops and products, including everything from cottonseed to beef. It also protects co-ops such as the Dairy Farmers of America from antitrust investigations by the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Federal Trade Commission. Instead, the U.S. Department of Agriculture is given primary authority to examine and handle any potentially monopolistic activity spearheaded by the co-op.
But recently Northeastern mushroom producers realized the limits of Capper-Volstead during a suit that alleged violations of the Sherman Act, the primary anti-competitive law in the U.S.
Eastern Mushroom Marketing Co-op (EMMC) fought back in In Re Mushroom Direct Purchaser Antitrust Litigation by claiming immunity under Capper-Volstead. In March 2009, however, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania found EMMC failed to satisfy the four corners of Capper-Volstead–most notably it gave a non-farmer voting rights within the co-op. The case is now in mediation.
The court found that because EMMC wasn't completely farmer owned, there couldn't be a unity of interest between the growers and distributors. Any price-fixing that occurred, therefore, would not necessarily be in the best interest of the farmers, the people Capper-Volstead was designed to protect.
In Re Mushroom Direct provides some pretty clear guidelines for avoiding antitrust litigation, says Troy Hutchinson, a partner at Stoel Rives. First, he says having just one non-farmer co-op member is enough to destroy Capper-Volstead's protection. Second, even if a co-op satisfies all of Capper-Volstead's requirements, the antitrust exemption does not protect co-ops that enter into partnerships with non-co-ops, including trade organizations that act on behalf of the co-op's membership. Dairy Farmers of America opened itself up to antitrust scrutiny from the DOJ because of its relationship with Dean Foods, for example.
“Any time a producer is entering into any kind of agreement with its competitors, those producers really need to take a hard look at those agreements and that anything being done jointly truly falls within the Capper-Volstead exemption,” Hutchinson says.
Adds Ron McFall, also with Stoel Rives, “The problem is if you have an activity that might be permissible under Capper-Volstead, but you do it while working with a non-producer organization, you increase the risk you'll fall outside the scope of the protection.”
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllSenators Grill Visa, Mastercard Execs on Alleged Anticompetitive Practices, Fees
Trump's SEC Likely to Halt 'Off-Channel' Texting Probe That's Led to Billions in Fines
Trump Likely to Keep Up Antitrust Enforcement, but Dial Back the Antagonism
5 minute readFTC Sues Cash-Advance Fintech Dave, Says It Deceives the 'Financially Vulnerable'
Trending Stories
- 1Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 2Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 3Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
- 4'It Refreshes Me': King & Spalding Privacy Leader Doubles as Equestrian Champ
- 5Class Action Filed Against Houston Health Savings Account Firm for Allegedly Confiscating Client Funds
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250