context: But if a monopsonist's uncompetitive prices are a result not solely of its market power, but also of practices that result in complete control of the input (supply) market, the effect of the monopsonist's practices may be an injury to competition. Moreover, although PSA claims against processors for practices associated with supply contracts have not enjoyed much success, these cases are factually different from the one before us. For example, the producers in these cases did not allege the existence of a monopsony. In addition, the supply contracts guaranteed producers a price tied to market prices, and overall, the arrangements created incentives and efficiencies that benefitted consumers.
citation_a.signal: see also
citation_a.identifier: 183 F.Supp.2d 824, 827
citation_a.parenthetical: granting summary judgment in favor of a defendant packer because the plaintiff producers had not identified any specific practices that violated the PSA
citation_a.sentence: Pickett, 420 F.3d at 1284 (“[I]t was undisputed ... that marketing agreements are a more efficient means for both meat packers and cattle producers to operate in the market.”); IBP, Inc., 187 F.3d at 978 (explaining that the marketing agreements “essentially ensure[ ] that the potential for undue or arbitrary lowering of prices is eliminated”); see also Griffin v. Smithfield Foods, Inc., 183 F.Supp.2d 824, 827 (E.D.Va.2002) (granting summary judgment in favor of a defendant packer because the plaintiff producers had not identified any specific practices that violated the PSA).
citation_b.signal: no signal
citation_b.identifier: 420 F.3d 1284, 1284
citation_b.parenthetical: "[I]t was undisputed ... that marketing agreements are a more efficient means for both meat packers and cattle producers to operate in the market."
citation_b.sentence: Pickett, 420 F.3d at 1284 (“[I]t was undisputed ... that marketing agreements are a more efficient means for both meat packers and cattle producers to operate in the market.”); IBP, Inc., 187 F.3d at 978 (explaining that the marketing agreements “essentially ensure[ ] that the potential for undue or arbitrary lowering of prices is eliminated”); see also Griffin v. Smithfield Foods, Inc., 183 F.Supp.2d 824, 827 (E.D.Va.2002) (granting summary judgment in favor of a defendant packer because the plaintiff producers had not identified any specific practices that violated the PSA).