throbber
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
`
`
`
`Food Lion, LLC, and Maryland and
`Virginia Milk Producers Cooperative
`Association, Inc.,
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`v.
`
`DAIRY FARMERS OF AMERICA,
`INC.,
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Docket No. 1:20-cv-442-CCE-JLW
`
`
`DAIRY FARMERS OF AMERICA, INC.’S ANSWER AND DEFENSES TO
`PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT
`
`Defendant Dairy Farmers of America, Inc. (“DFA”), by and through its undersigned
`
`
`
`
`
`counsel, answer Plaintiffs’ Complaint, ECF No. 1, as follows.
`
`Introduction
`
`This matter involves failed bidders and failing competitors who are turning to the
`
`antitrust laws to try to change the marketplace.
`
`On May 19, 2020, and after failing to convince the Bankruptcy Court for the
`
`Southern District of Texas (“Bankruptcy Court”) to block the sale of certain Dean Foods
`
`Company (“Dean”) processing plants to DFA, Plaintiffs—Food Lion, LLC (“Food Lion”)
`
`and Maryland and Virginia Milk Producers Cooperative Association, Inc. (“MDVA”)—
`
`
`
`1
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00442-CCE-JLW Document 45 Filed 08/14/20 Page 1 of 70
`
`

`

`filed a Complaint seeking to undo this acquisition under Section 7 of the Clayton Act and
`
`Section 2 of the Sherman Act.
`
`The thrust of Plaintiffs’ theory is that DFA’s acquisition of bankrupt Dean’s three
`
`processing plants in North and South Carolina (the “Carolina Plants”) might, in 2021,
`
`prevent MDVA from competing to supply those plants with raw milk, and that as a result
`
`of MDVA perhaps not gaining that potential business, Food Lion might not receive as low
`
`prices as it would like for future purchases of processed fluid milk (“Processed Milk”) from
`
`the Carolina Plants.
`
`But the Plaintiffs also concede that competition remains unaffected in the market:
`
`the Carolina Plants still process raw milk from DFA (as they did prior to DFA’s acquisition
`
`of these plants); MDVA still sells its raw milk to processors other than Dean or DFA; and
`
`Food Lion still purchases its Processed Milk from processors other than Dean or DFA.
`
`And there is no allegation that the competition, as it presently exists, is illegal or improper
`
`in any way.
`
`The Plaintiffs also concede that the Carolina Plants were purchased by DFA through
`
`procedures governed and approved by the Bankruptcy Court and in an orderly, public
`
`process, overseen by the Bankruptcy Court. The Bankruptcy Court established bidding
`
`procedures. MDVA and DFA were two of several potential bidders. DFA sought to
`
`purchase the vast majority of Dean’s assets, 44 facilities, including corporate headquarters
`
`and fluid milk and frozen operations across the country. MDVA sought to purchase a
`
`single plant, in High Point, North Carolina. Food Lion made no effort to bid for or acquire
`
`
`
`2
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00442-CCE-JLW Document 45 Filed 08/14/20 Page 2 of 70
`
`

`

`any plant. The Court approved Dean’s selection of DFA as the winning bidder of these
`
`facilities, with full awareness of MDVA’s bid for the High Point, North Carolina plant, and
`
`over the objections of Plaintiffs.
`
`The incontrovertible reality behind these admissions is that but for DFA stepping
`
`forward and buying these assets, all or most of the Carolina plants would have been
`
`liquidated and critical fluid milk capacity and output would have left the market supplying
`
`the Carolinas. Thus, the only “change” to the market and competition is that DFA
`
`preserved competitive supply that would have otherwise left the market. Simple economics
`
`says that is unambiguously procompetitive, not anticompetitive.
`
`In order to claim that they could be harmed in the future, the Plaintiffs are forced to
`
`allege a geographic market that is implausible. Plaintiffs argue the geographic market is
`
`limited to North and South Carolina because of the Atlantic Ocean and Appalachian
`
`Mountains, omitting the existence of Virginia to the north and Georgia to the south.
`
`Plaintiffs admit participation in Federal Milk Marketing Order 5, which reflects the
`
`movement of milk throughout the Southeast. And further, Plaintiffs admit seeking milk
`
`from outside the Carolinas, such as Food Lion’s 2017 request for proposal sent to MDVA’s
`
`Virginia processing facility.
`
`DFA is a cooperative made up of a diverse group of dairy farmers who seek to
`
`work together to achieve the best price and distribution that they can for their product.
`
`Because of its diversity and the large number of farmers who it represents, DFA has
`
`successfully advanced the interests of its farmers, enabling the survival of family and
`
`
`
`3
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00442-CCE-JLW Document 45 Filed 08/14/20 Page 3 of 70
`
`

`

`small farms. It is laser-focused on both creating demand, and finding a home for
`
`farmers’ milk, which includes capturing the plainly procompetitive vertical efficiencies
`
`of operating fluid milk processing plants. MDVA sues because it has been unable to
`
`compete in the marketplace; Food Lion, which is part of a $70 billion international
`
`conglomerate, sues because it seeks to extract the lowest possible prices to enhance its
`
`profit margins. This is an improper use of the antitrust laws.
`
`The allegations and argument in Plaintiffs’ eight introductory paragraphs constitute
`
`Plaintiffs’ characterization of the facts and legal and economic arguments to which no
`
`response is required. To the extent a response is required, the allegations in these
`
`introductory paragraphs are denied. Further, the headings and sub-headings contained in
`
`Plaintiffs’ Complaint are improper statements of fact or legal conclusion to which no
`
`response is required. To the extent a response is required, DFA denies those allegations.
`
`
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`Plaintiff Food Lion is a North Carolina limited liability company
`1.
`headquartered in Salisbury, North Carolina. It operates more than 1,000
`supermarkets, either directly or through affiliates, in ten states, including
`approximately 600 supermarkets in North and South Carolina and dozens more that
`purchase fluid milk from milk processing facilities in the Carolinas. Food Lion
`purchases processed fluid milk in interstate commerce and is one of the largest retail
`purchasers of processed fluid milk from processing facilities in North and South
`Carolina.
`
`ANSWER: DFA is without information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief
`
`as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 1, and on that basis, denies these allegations.
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00442-CCE-JLW Document 45 Filed 08/14/20 Page 4 of 70
`
`

`

`Plaintiff MDVA is a corporation organized and existing under the laws
`2.
`of the Commonwealth of Virginia with its principal place of business in Reston,
`Virginia. MDVA is a dairy cooperative with approximately 950 member farms in
`eleven states throughout the Mid-Atlantic and Southeast. MDVA also owns two fluid
`milk processing facilities outside of the Carolinas and two plants that produce bulk
`dairy ingredients for food manufacturers.
`
`ANSWER: DFA is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
`
`as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 2, and on that basis, denies these allegations.
`
`Defendant DFA is a dairy cooperative organized and existing under the
`3.
`laws of the State of Kansas, with its principal place of business in Kansas City,
`Missouri. DFA is the largest dairy cooperative in the United States, representing over
`14,000 dairy producers in forty-eight states and recognizing $13.6 billion in revenue
`in 2018. In the wake of the Asset Sale, DFA is also the nation’s largest processor and
`direct-to-store distributor of fluid milk and other dairy and dairy case products. Now
`DFA not only engages in the production and marketing of raw milk, but it also
`manufactures, markets, and distributes processed milk to retailers, distributors,
`foodservice outlets, educational institutions, and governmental entities across the
`country, including from its legacy Dean plants in High Point, North Carolina;
`Winston Salem, North Carolina; and Spartanburg, South Carolina.
`
`ANSWER: DFA admits it is a not-for-profit corporation organized and existing
`
`under the laws of the State of Kansas. DFA denies its principal place of business is in
`
`Kansas City, Missouri. DFA admits it is a cooperative as defined under Chapter 17, Article
`
`16 of the Kansas Cooperative Marketing Act. DFA admits that it is the largest dairy
`
`cooperative in the United States with over 13,000 producer members as of the date of this
`
`response. DFA admits that it had $13.6 billion in net sales in 2018. DFA admits that it
`
`markets its producer-members’ raw milk. DFA further admits it has ownership interests
`
`in entities that operate certain milk processing plants in multiple states in the United States
`
`that manufacture fluid milk and other dairy-based products. DFA further admits that the
`
`customers of these products include retailers, distributors, foodservice outlets, educational
`5
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00442-CCE-JLW Document 45 Filed 08/14/20 Page 5 of 70
`
`

`

`institutions, and governmental entities in multiple states in the United States. DFA further
`
`admits that it owns the fluid milk processing plants in High Point, North Carolina, Winston-
`
`Salem, North Carolina and Spartanburg, South Carolina. DFA denies the remaining
`
`allegations in this introductory paragraph.
`
`JURISDICTION, VENUE AND INTERSTATE COMMERCE
`
`This Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to
`4.
`15 U.S.C. § 26; 28 U.S.C. § 1331; and/or 28 U.S.C. § 1337(a).
`
`ANSWER: DFA denies the allegations in Paragraph 4.
`
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over DFA under 15 U.S.C. § 22,
`5.
`because DFA may be found and regularly transacts business in this judicial district.
`
`ANSWER: DFA admits the Court has personal jurisdiction over DFA.
`
`Venue is proper in this judicial district under 15 U.S.C. § 22 and 28
`6.
`U.S.C. § 1391(b) and (c), because DFA may be found and regularly transacts business
`in this judicial district. Two of the three legacy Dean milk processing facilities at issue
`in this Complaint are located in this judicial district, and the anticompetitive effects
`of the Asset Sale will be felt throughout this judicial district.
`
`ANSWER: Paragraph 6 calls for a legal conclusion to which no response is
`
`required. To the extent a response is required, DFA denies the allegations.
`
`DFA is engaged in, and its activities substantially affect, interstate
`7.
`commerce, and the conduct alleged herein substantially affects interstate commerce.
`Among other things, DFA purchases, markets, processes, and ships milk across state
`lines. DFA receives substantial payments across state lines for the sale of raw and/or
`processed milk. DFA’s acquisition of three legacy Dean processing facilities in North
`and South Carolina will have adverse effects on competition and consumers,
`including for the production and processing of fluid milk sold, in the region.
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00442-CCE-JLW Document 45 Filed 08/14/20 Page 6 of 70
`
`

`

`ANSWER: Paragraph 7 calls for a legal conclusion to which no response is
`
`required. To the extent a response is required, DFA denies the allegations. DFA denies
`
`the remaining allegations in Paragraph 7.
`
`RELEVANT MARKETS
`
`The Relevant Product Markets
`
`8.
`
`There are two relevant product markets at issue in this case.
`
`ANSWER: Paragraph 8 consists of a legal conclusion to which a response is not
`
`required. To the extent one is required, DFA denies the allegations in Paragraph 8.
`
`The first market is an upstream market for the supply of raw Grade A
`9.
`milk (“raw milk”) by dairy producers, in which both DFA and MDVA compete, to
`milk processing plants like the legacy Dean facilities (the “raw milk market”).
`
`ANSWER: Paragraph 9 consists of a legal conclusion and definition to which a
`
`response is not required. To the extent a response is required, DFA denies those allegations
`
`in Paragraph 9.
`
`The second market is the downstream market for the processing, co-
`10.
`packing, and delivery of fluid milk products to retailers like Food Lion and other
`customers (the “processed milk market” or “processed fluid milk market”).
`
`ANSWER: Paragraph 10 consists of a legal conclusion and definition to which a
`
`response is not required. To the extent a response is required, DFA denies those allegations
`
`in Paragraph 10.
`
`The milk industry, including DFA and Dean, treat these two product
`11.
`markets as being distinct in the ordinary course of business. These relevant product
`markets also have been treated as being distinct by federal courts in prior litigation
`involving DFA and Dean.
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00442-CCE-JLW Document 45 Filed 08/14/20 Page 7 of 70
`
`

`

`ANSWER: Paragraph 11 consists of legal conclusion to which a response is not
`
`required. To the extent a response is required, DFA denies those allegations in Paragraph
`
`11. DFA denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 11.
`
`Raw milk is a fungible, homogenous, and highly perishable commodity.
`12.
`Dairy farmers milk their cows at least twice a day and the milk must be transported
`from farms to milk processors nearly every day and sometimes multiple times a day.
`Raw milk is typically stored in refrigerated tanks until it is picked up by a milk hauler
`who transports it in insulated trucks to milk processing plants. Milk processing plants
`process this milk for human consumption and package it for wholesale or retail sale.
`
`ANSWER: DFA admits that raw milk is highly perishable. DFA admits that dairy
`
`farmers generally milk their cows at least twice a day. DFA further admits that raw milk
`
`is typically stored in refrigerated bulk tanks until it is picked up by a milk hauler who
`
`transports it in insulated trucks to raw milk processing plants. DFA further admits that
`
`milk processing plants process raw milk. DFA denies the remaining allegations in
`
`Paragraph 12.
`
`Federal milk sanitation standards distinguish between milk eligible for
`13.
`use in fluid products—called raw Grade A milk—and milk eligible only for
`manufactured dairy products. Pursuant to the 1937 Agriculture Act, the U.S. Dairy
`Association (“USDA”) classifies raw Grade A milk as milk that qualifies for use in
`fluid milk products for human consumption. The highest standards are established
`for raw Grade A milk because of safety risks associated with fluid milk products.
`
`ANSWER: DFA admits that federal milk sanitation standards distinguish between
`
`milk eligible for use in fluid products, known as Grade A milk, but aver that those rules
`
`and regulations speak for themselves. To the extent Plaintiffs’ allegations in Paragraph 13
`
`characterize or contradict those rules or regulations, DFA denies those allegations. DFA
`
`denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 13.
`
`
`
`8
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00442-CCE-JLW Document 45 Filed 08/14/20 Page 8 of 70
`
`

`

`Each month, the USDA calculates minimum prices pursuant to its
`14.
`formula for raw milk marketed in different geographic regions, known as Federal
`Milk Marketing Orders (“FMMO”). Currently, there are ten FMMOs. The milk
`processing facilities at issue in this Complaint are included in FMMO 5.
`
`ANSWER: DFA admits that the United States Department of Agriculture
`
`calculates certain minimum prices for raw milk but avers that the United States Department
`
`of Agriculture regulations relating to such matters speak for themselves. To the extent
`
`Plaintiffs’ allegations in Paragraph 14 characterize or contradict those regulations, DFA
`
`denies those allegations. DFA further admits that there are currently ten FMMOs. DFA
`
`further admits the High Point, North Carolina, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, and
`
`Spartanburg, South Carolina, fluid milk processing plants are in FMMO 5. DFA denies
`
`the rest of the allegations in Paragraph 14.
`
`USDA regulations mandate that cooperatives and independent dairy
`15.
`farmers participating in the FMMO program receive at least the weighted uniform
`average or minimum “blend” price for raw Grade A milk that is “pooled” on an
`Order. Dairy farmers “pool” raw Grade A milk on an FMMO by delivering specified
`minimum quantities of such milk to USDA-regulated fluid milk processing plants
`associated with that FMMO.
`
`ANSWER: DFA admits that United States Department of Agriculture regulations
`
`govern certain aspects relating to the pooling and payment for milk but aver that those
`
`regulations speak for themselves. To the extent Plaintiffs’ allegations in Paragraph 15
`
`characterize or contradict those regulations, DFA denies those allegations.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00442-CCE-JLW Document 45 Filed 08/14/20 Page 9 of 70
`
`

`

`USDA minimum prices for raw Grade A milk represent the minimum
`16.
`prices that milk processors must pay for such milk marketed pursuant to USDA
`regulation. These minimum prices, however, are less than the farmers’ cost to
`produce the milk. Farmers must sell their raw milk for more than these minimum
`prices in order to survive.
`
`ANSWER: The first sentence of Paragraph 16 contains Plaintiffs’ characterization
`
`of the operation of United States Department of Agriculture regulations. DFA avers that
`
`those regulations speak for themselves and does not require a response. To the extent
`
`Paragraph 16 is inconsistent with or contradicts those regulations, DFA denies those
`
`allegations. DFA denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 16.
`
`On the processed milk side, consumers have long-held cultural and
`17.
`taste preferences for processed fluid milk over other beverages, and processed fluid
`milk has particular nutritional benefits and qualities for use in cooking.
`Consequently, consumer demand for processed fluid milk is relatively inelastic; that
`is, processed fluid milk consumption does not decrease significantly in response to a
`price increase. Fluid milk is distinct from extended shelf-life milk, ultra-high
`temperature milk, and aseptic milk, which are produced by different processes, have
`numerous significant differences, and generally cost significantly more than fluid
`milk.
`
`
`ANSWER: Paragraph 17 contains economic conclusions and characterizations
`
`regarding consumer behavior about which DFA is without sufficient knowledge or
`
`information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations, and on those bases denies
`
`those allegations. DFA admits that extended shelf-life milk, ultra-high temperature milk
`
`and aseptic milk are produced by different processes. DFA denies the allegations in
`
`Paragraph 17.
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00442-CCE-JLW Document 45 Filed 08/14/20 Page 10 of 70
`
`

`

`Retailers, supermarkets, distributors, and other processed fluid milk
`18.
`customers are unlikely to substitute other products for fluid milk because the
`individual consumers that they serve continue to demand fluid milk.
`
`ANSWER: DFA is without sufficient knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of
`
`the allegations in Paragraph 18, and on that basis, denies those allegations.
`
`Dairy farmers and dairy cooperatives sell raw milk to milk processors
`19.
`who have no feasible substitutes. Similarly, milk processors sell processed fluid milk
`to retailers, who can sell other beverages, but none that are good substitutes for fluid
`milk.
`
`
`ANSWER: DFA admits that dairy farmers and dairy cooperatives can sell raw milk
`
`to milk processors. DFA admits that fluid milk processors can sell fluid milk to retailers.
`
`DFA denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 19.
`
`The markets for raw and processed fluid milk satisfy the well-accepted
`20.
`“hypothetical monopolist” test set forth in Part 4.1 of the DOJ and Federal Trade
`Commission 2010 Horizontal Merger Guidelines, and incorporated by reference into
`Part 2 of the Draft Vertical Merger Guidelines (released for public comment on
`January 10, 2020). A hypothetical monopolist of raw milk could impose a small but
`significant non- transitory increase in price (“SSNIP”) to milk processors. Processors
`have no reasonable substitute for raw milk that would render a SSNIP on raw milk
`unprofitable. A hypothetical monopolist of processed milk could impose a SSNIP to
`customers of processed milk, such as grocery retailers. Retailers and other processed
`milk customers could not turn to purchasing other products in sufficient quantity or
`numbers to render a SSNIP on processed milk unprofitable.
`
`ANSWER: Paragraph 20 consists of legal and economic conclusions to which no
`
`response is required. To the extent a response is required, DFA denies those allegations.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00442-CCE-JLW Document 45 Filed 08/14/20 Page 11 of 70
`
`

`

`
`
`The Relevant Geographic Market
`
`The relevant geographic market in this action for both the supply of
`21.
`raw milk and its processing and co-packing consists of the milk processing plants in
`North and South Carolina. Dairies and cooperatives to which these plants may
`reasonably turn for supply of raw milk for these facilities are included in the
`geographic market for raw milk. Similarly, customers of processed milk including
`retailers that can reasonably turn to these facilities for the purchase of processed milk
`are included in the geographic market for processed milk.
`
`ANSWER: DFA denies the allegations in Paragraph 21.
`
`Transportation costs and perishability limit the distance over which
`22.
`raw milk can profitably be shipped. As stated above, farmers generally milk their
`cows at least twice a day, and the milk must be stored in refrigerated tanks and
`transported to milk processors nearly every day and in some cases multiple times a
`day. Raw milk is highly perishable and is costly to transport because it must be
`shipped in insulated tanks. Shipping costs are estimated to increase by approximately
`$0.10 per gallon for every additional 100 miles shipped. This makes the need to
`transport milk to the closest processing facility even more important in order to
`manage transportation costs.
`
`ANSWER: DFA admits that raw milk is highly perishable. DFA further admits
`
`that dairy farmers generally milk their cows at least twice a day. DFA further admits that
`
`raw Grade A milk is typically stored in refrigerated bulk tanks until it is picked up by a
`
`milk hauler to transports it in insulated trucks to raw Grade A milk processing plants. DFA
`
`denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 22.
`
`The region surrounding the milk processing facilities in North and
`23.
`South Carolina has two geographic features that limit the region within which milk
`can reasonably and profitably be shipped to and from milk processing facilities: the
`Atlantic Ocean to the East and the Appalachian Mountains to the West. Shipping
`across the Appalachian Mountains is not economically feasible because of the
`transportation costs associated with crossing the mountains.
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00442-CCE-JLW Document 45 Filed 08/14/20 Page 12 of 70
`
`

`

`ANSWER: DFA admits the Atlantic Ocean is east of North and South Carolina.
`
`DFA further admits that the Appalachian Mountains run along the western edge of North
`
`and South Carolina. DFA denies the remaining allegations in this Paragraph.
`
`The economic and transportation costs of shipping milk dictate that the
`24.
`long-term viability and overall competitiveness of a dairy cooperative supplying raw
`milk to a milk processor in the Carolinas relies on the cooperative’s ability to
`transport its members’ milk to a local processing facility.
`
`ANSWER: DFA denies the allegations in Paragraph 24.
`
`These geographic and cost constraints leave dairy producers located
`25.
`near the processing facilities in North and South Carolina with only six processing
`and packaging facilities to which to sell raw milk: (1) the legacy Dean (now DFA)
`facility in Winston-Salem, North Carolina; (3) the legacy Dean (now DFA) facility in
`High Point, North Carolina; (3) the legacy Dean (now DFA) facility in Spartanburg,
`South Carolina; (4) Kroger’s Hunter Farms facility in High Point, North Carolina;
`(5) Ingles’ Milkco facility in Asheville, North Carolina; and (6) the Borden Dairy Co.
`facility in Charleston, South Carolina. Because geographic and transportation costs
`also constrain the shipment of processed milk, downstream purchasers of processed
`milk also rely on nearby milk processing facilities. Below is a map identifying these
`facilities’ respective locations.
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00442-CCE-JLW Document 45 Filed 08/14/20 Page 13 of 70
`
`

`

`Figure One: Milk Processing Facilities in the Carolinas
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ANSWER: DFA denies the allegations in the first sentence of Paragraph 25. DFA
`
`admits Figure One purports to show six milk processing facilities in North and South
`
`Carolina. DFA is without sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth of the
`
`allegations, and thus on that basis, denies the remainder of the allegations in Paragraph 25.
`
`A hypothetical monopolist of cooperatives and independent dairies
`26.
`selling raw milk to the processors located in North and South Carolina could impose
`a SSNIP. This is because the high transportation costs associated with raw milk mean
`that processors cannot turn to more distant cooperatives to defeat a SSNIP.
`
`ANSWER: Paragraph 26 calls for legal and economic conclusions to which no
`
`response is required. In addition, DFA is without sufficient information to form a belief as
`
`to the truth of the allegations, and thus on both of these bases, denies the allegations in
`
`Paragraph 26.
`
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00442-CCE-JLW Document 45 Filed 08/14/20 Page 14 of 70
`
`

`

`A hypothetical monopolist of milk processors located in North and
`27.
`South Carolina could impose a SSNIP in price to customers such as retailers. This is
`because retailers, collectively, would not be able profitably to offset such a price
`increase by shipping milk from more distant milk processors. Even if some customers
`closer to the market boundary did find it economical to substitute more distant
`processors, this would not be sufficient to offset the aggregate profitability of a price
`increase.
`
`ANSWER: Paragraph 27 calls for legal and economic conclusions to which no
`
`response is required. In addition, DFA is without sufficient information to form a belief as
`
`to the truth of the allegations, and thus on both of these bases, denies the allegations in
`
`Paragraph 27.
`
`
`
`DFA’S CONSOLIDATION OF THE U.S. DAIRY INDUSTRY
`
`Milk Cooperatives
`
`
`The dairy industry in the United States is highly concentrated, at both
`28.
`the raw milk producer and processor levels, and has become increasingly
`concentrated over time as DFA has sought to monopolize the dairy supply chain.
`
`ANSWER: DFA is without sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth
`
`of the allegations regarding the dairy industry at large, and thus on that basis, denies the
`
`allegations in Paragraph 28. DFA denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 28.
`
`Dairy cooperatives are associations of dairy farmers who agree to
`29.
`market collectively their raw milk. Cooperatives are supposed to be voluntary
`associations— owned, operated, and controlled by their farmer members.
`Cooperatives “market” their farmers’ raw milk, which usually consists of locating
`buyers, negotiating sales prices, coordinating hauling, performing testing, recording
`and reporting related data to milk market regulators, and paying member farmers
`for their raw milk.
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00442-CCE-JLW Document 45 Filed 08/14/20 Page 15 of 70
`
`

`

`ANSWER: DFA admits that dairy cooperatives are associations of dairy producers
`
`who agree to collectively market their dairy products and that such cooperatives are owned
`
`by their member-producers. DFA further admits that dairy cooperatives may locate buyers
`
`for their member-producers’ raw Grade A milk, negotiate sales prices, coordinate the
`
`hauling, perform testing, record and report related data to milk market regulators, and
`
`process payments to member-producers for their raw Grade A milk. DFA denies the
`
`remaining allegations in Paragraph 29.
`
`One of the key responsibilities of cooperatives is to negotiate prices
`30.
`higher than the FMMO minimum prices. The amounts by which prices paid for raw
`Grade A milk exceed FMMO minimum prices are known generically as “over-order
`premiums.” Access to milk processing plants in North and South Carolina and receipt
`of FMMO minimum prices and over-order premiums are necessary and essential to
`the economic viability of dairy farmers in the region.
`
`ANSWER: DFA admits dairy farmers and cooperatives, including DFA, attempt
`
`to negotiate prices for raw Grade A milk that exceed the FMMO minimum blend prices,
`
`and that the price negotiated above the minimum blend price is sometimes referred to as
`
`an “over-order premium.” DFA denies the remainder of the allegations in Paragraph 30.
`
`Not all dairy farmers are cooperative members. Some dairy farmers
`31.
`seek to remain independent of cooperatives and are referred to as “independent dairy
`farmers.” Independent dairy farmers seek to market their raw milk to fluid milk
`processing plants by contracting with processing plants either directly or through
`agents and/or marketing associations. Many independent dairy farms are family-
`owned and operated and have been so for generations.
`
`ANSWER: DFA admits that dairy producers may be members of a cooperative
`
`and some may be independent (i.e., not a member of a cooperative) and that some of these
`
`dairy farmers may be referred to as “independent dairy farmers.” DFA admits that
`
`
`
`16
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00442-CCE-JLW Document 45 Filed 08/14/20 Page 16 of 70
`
`

`

`independent dairy farmers may market their own raw milk directly to milk processors or
`
`may rely on a marketing agent or marketing association to market their milk. DFA denies
`
`the remaining allegations in Paragraph 31.
`
`On January 1, 1998, DFA, a new marketing cooperative, was created
`32.
`from the merger of four competing dairy cooperatives. By 2000, DFA had emerged
`as the largest dairy cooperative in the United States and controlled more than 50%
`of the raw Grade A milk produced in the Southeast United States.
`
`ANSWER: DFA admits that the creation of DFA was effective January 1, 1998,
`
`and that DFA was created from the merger of four cooperatives: the Southern Region of
`
`Associated Milk Producers, Inc. (“AMPI”), Mid-American Dairymen, Inc. (“Mid-Am”),
`
`Milk Marketing, Inc., and Western Dairymen Cooperative, Inc. DFA admits that by 2000,
`
`DFA was the largest dairy cooperative in the United States. DFA denies the remaining
`
`allegations in Paragraph 32.
`
`Today, DFA is still the largest dairy cooperative and raw milk producer
`33.
`in the United States. DFA’s members, all of which are producers of raw milk, include
`both
`individual dairy farmers and other member-owned milk marketing
`cooperatives. In 2018, DFA produced 52.7 billion pounds of raw milk—
`approximately 30% of all raw milk produced in the United States—making it more
`than three times larger than the next largest dairy cooperative, California Dairies
`Inc., which is a DFA partner. DFA had 2018 revenues of $13.6 billion. DFA recently
`started issuing non-voting preferred stock, and its equity from this stock comprises a
`large portion of DFA’s total equity.
`
`ANSWER: DFA admits it is the largest dairy cooperative in the United States as
`
`of the date of this Answer. DFA admits that its members are all producers of raw milk.
`
`DFA further admits that its members include individual dairy farmers. DFA admits that in
`
`2018 it marketed 64.5 billion pounds of raw milk for both members and others, which
`
`represented approximately 30% of the total milk production in the United States. DFA
`17
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00442-CCE-JLW Document 45 Filed 08/14/20 Page 17 of 70
`
`

`

`admits that in 2018, it had net sales of $13.6 billion. DFA denies the remaining allegations
`
`in Paragraph 33.
`
`Through various transactions, partnerships, joint ventures, and
`34.
`contractual relationships, DFA has expanded its dominance of the milk supply chain,
`establishing vertical relationships and interests in everything from production, to
`processing, to delivery. Thus, DFA currently controls two critical product markets
`within the milk supply chain—production and processing—in many of the geographic
`markets in which it operates. Until the Asset Sale was consummated, the geographic
`region at issue in this Complaint

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket