000465 IBP and Cattlemen Spar Over Lawsuit Ruling

Chicag - IBP Inc. and lawyers for a group of cattlemen disagreed on the thrust of a federal appeals court ruling issued last week in a 4-year-old suit over cattle pricing.

The suit, filed in Montgomery, Alabama, in 1996 by 10 cattle producers, charged that IBP used its market power and cattle marketing agreements with producers and feedlots to depress cattle prices.

Since then, attempts to have the suit certified as a class action have run into several legal roadblocks and spurred a war of words over the most recent court ruling.

The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta on April 20 reversed a lower court's decision last April to certify a broad class involving cattle producers who sold cattle to IBP from April 1994 through April 1999.

The lower court's class certification included cattlemen who sold cattle to IBP on the open cash market and those who had forward contracts and marketing agreements with IBP.

The Court of Appeals concluded that the class could not include both and reversed the lower court's order certifying the plaintiff class, sending the case back to the Middle District Court of Alabama for further proceedings.

“We conclude that, under these circumstances, the plaintiffs could not possibly provide adequate representation to a class that includes producers who willingly entered into forward contracts and marketing agreements with IBP as well as those who complain of and claim harm from the practice,” the appeals ruling said.

In a statement Tuesday, lawyers for the cattlemen said the appellate court's decision instructed the lower court to narrow the class and left intact the class action.

The lawyers also said the ruling “restricts the class to cattlemen who sold cattle for cash.”

IBP said on Thursday those statements were inaccurate.

“There is no such language in the decision,” said Gary Mickelson, an IBP spokesman.

“The ruling by the appeals court means that the plaintiffs have once again failed in their efforts to transform this dispute between IBP and a handful of cattle producers into a class action,” Mickelson said.

Joe Whatley, one of the attorneys representing the cattlemen, said the ruling addressed the scope of the class, not whether there could be one.

“If they had intended to reverse the class entirely, why would there be any need to remand for further proceedings?” Whatley said.

“We're really into an issue of semantics,” he said. “We believe that what's going to happen is exactly what we said -- that Judge Lyle Strom (the trial judge) will narrow the certification. It's true the language is not in there, but the effect of the ruling is to narrow the class.”

Mickelson added that it was now up to the plaintiffs to decide whether to continue with the case.

“If they continue their previously failed efforts to seek class certification, they will have to file another motion, which IBP will vigorously oppose,” Mickelson said.

RETURN TO HOME PAGE

E-mail: sflanagan@sprintmail.com