Case 2:19-cv-00463-RAJ-LRL Document 179 Filed 06/26/20 Page 1 of 26 PageID# 2214
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
`Norfolk Division
`
`IN RE PEANUT FARMERS
`ANTITRUST LITIGATION
`
`Case No. 2:19-cv-00463-RAJ-LRL
`
`BIRDSONG CORPORATION’S ANSWER
`TO THE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`Defendant Birdsong Corporation (“Birdsong”), by counsel, pursuant to Rule 12 of the
`
`Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Order of this Court (ECF No. 147), states as follows for
`
`its answer to the Second Amended Class Action Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial (ECF No.
`
`148) (the “Complaint”) filed by Plaintiffs:
`
`Birdsong is a family-run Virginia business that has operated in Suffolk, Virginia for over
`
`a century buying and selling peanuts. Over the last 105 years, Birdsong has grown to the premier
`
`shelling business it is today – contracting with farmers in thirteen states and selling to peanut
`
`buyers and manufacturers in the United States and across the world. The sole business of Birdsong
`
`is peanuts and peanut-related products. Birdsong has built its business reputation based on integrity
`
`and fair dealing with farmers and purchasers of peanuts alike. Birdsong denies that it engaged in
`
`any of the anticompetitive activities alleged in the Complaint. Birdsong has competed fairly and
`
`lawfully for over a century.
`
`Any allegation not explicitly admitted is denied. By noting or admitting that the Complaint
`
`purports to characterize or quote particular documents, Birdsong does not admit the truth of any
`
`assertion in the referenced document. Moreover, headings and footnotes contained within the
`
`Complaint are not substantive allegations to which an answer is required. To the extent headings
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00463-RAJ-LRL Document 179 Filed 06/26/20 Page 2 of 26 PageID# 2215
`
`are substantive allegations to which an answer is required, Birdsong denies the allegations.
`
`Birdsong has recited within its Answer below the headings as used in the Complaint solely for
`
`organizational purposes and does not admit any of the allegations contained therein. To the extent
`
`footnotes in the Complaint are deemed to be substantive allegations, then the response to the
`
`paragraph in which the footnote is found is Birdsong’s response to the footnote as well.
`
`The Complaint’s opening paragraph only contains introductory statements to which no
`
`response is required. To the extent a response is required, Birdsong denies that Plaintiffs and their
`
`allegations in the Complaint meet the requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil
`
`Procedure for certification of a class. Birdsong denies all liability and denies that Plaintiffs are
`
`entitled to recover treble damages under the antitrust laws of the United States.
`
`I.
`
`NATURE OF ACTION
`
`1.
`
`The allegations contained in paragraph 1 of the Complaint are vague and
`
`ambiguous as they address processes that “usually” occur for a “majority” or “approximat[e]”
`
`percentage. Birdsong admits that peanut shelling companies (or shellers) play a vital role in the
`
`peanut processing process. Birdsong admits that the majority of peanut crops are processed in
`
`some manner prior to reaching customers. Birdsong admits that peanuts are processed and
`
`packaged into containers for shipment or storage and that shellers market and sell shelled peanuts
`
`to food companies and manufacturers. Any allegations in paragraph 1 of the Complaint not
`
`expressly admitted above are denied.
`
`2.
`
`Paragraph 2 of the Complaint contains only internal definitions of the Complaint to
`
`which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, Birdsong admits that Plaintiffs
`
`have provided definitions and denies any remaining allegations.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00463-RAJ-LRL Document 179 Filed 06/26/20 Page 3 of 26 PageID# 2216
`
`3.
`
`Paragraph 3 of the Complaint contains only internal definitions of the Complaint
`
`to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, Birdsong admits that
`
`Plaintiffs have provided definitions and denies any remaining allegations.
`
`4.
`
`Birdsong admits that Birdsong, Golden Peanut Company, LLC (“Golden”), and
`
`Olam Peanut Shelling Company, Inc. (“Olam”) are shellers. Birdsong denies the remaining
`
`allegations contained in paragraph 4 of the Complaint.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`Birdsong denies the allegations contained in paragraph 5 of the Complaint.
`
`Birdsong denies the allegations contained in paragraph 6 of the Complaint.
`
`Birdsong denies the allegations contained in paragraph 7 of the Complaint.
`
`Birdsong admits that there is no futures market for peanuts and that there is
`
`contracting between Birdsong and farmers. Birdsong denies the remainder of the allegations
`
`contained in paragraph 8 of the Complaint.
`
`9.
`
`Birdsong admits that it has shelling facilities and buying points located in the
`
`United States peanut producing regions. Birdsong admits that it is involved in industry trade
`
`associations. Birdsong denies the remainder of the allegations contained in paragraph 9 of the
`
`Complaint.
`
`10.
`
`11.
`
`Birdsong denies the allegations contained in paragraph 10 of the Complaint.
`
`Birdsong denies the allegations contained in the first and second sentences of
`
`paragraph 11 of the Complaint. Birdsong is without sufficient information to admit or deny the
`
`remaining allegations in paragraph 11 of the Complaint.
`
`12.
`
`Birdsong denies the allegations contained in paragraph 12 of the Complaint.
`
`II.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`13.
`
`Birdsong admits that Plaintiffs have filed this action under the Clayton Act. The
`
`remainder of Paragraph 13 of the Complaint states only legal conclusions to which no response is
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00463-RAJ-LRL Document 179 Filed 06/26/20 Page 4 of 26 PageID# 2217
`
`required. To the extent a response is required, Birdsong denies the allegations contained in
`
`paragraph 13 of the Complaint, including any claims by Plaintiffs that they are entitled to the relief
`
`in paragraph 13.
`
`14.
`
`Paragraph 14 of the Complaint states only legal conclusions to which no response
`
`is required. To the extent a response is required, Birdsong admits the allegations contained in
`
`paragraph 14 of the Complaint.
`
`15.
`
`Paragraph 15 of the Complaint states only legal conclusions to which no response
`
`is required. To the extent a response is required, Birdsong admits venue for purposes of this action
`
`and denies the remainder of the allegations contained in paragraph 15 of the Complaint.
`
`16.
`
`Paragraph 16 of the Complaint states only legal conclusions to which no response
`
`is required. To the extent a response is required, Birdsong admits that the Court has personal
`
`jurisdiction over it.
`
`17.
`
`18.
`
`Birdsong denies the allegations contained in paragraph 17 of the Complaint.
`
`Paragraph 18 of the Complaint states only legal conclusions to which no response
`
`is required. To the extent a response is required, Birdsong denies the allegations contained in
`
`paragraph 18 of the Complaint.
`
`A.
`
`Plaintiffs
`
`III.
`
`PARTIES
`
`19.
`
`Birdsong admits that Plaintiff D&M Farms appears to be a Florida partnership that
`
`entered into three contracts to sell runner peanuts to Birdsong in 2019. See (ECF No. 48-1).
`
`Birdsong denies the remainder of the allegations contained in paragraph 19 of the Complaint.
`
`20.
`
`Birdsong denies that Mark Hasty sold Runners to Birdsong. Birdsong is without
`
`sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations contained in paragraph 20 of the Complaint,
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00463-RAJ-LRL Document 179 Filed 06/26/20 Page 5 of 26 PageID# 2218
`
`and therefore, denies the same. Birdsong denies that Plaintiff Mark Hasty suffered any antitrust
`
`injury.
`
`21.
`
`Birdsong denies that Dustin Land sold Runners to Birdsong. Birdsong is without
`
`sufficient information to admit or deny the remainder of the allegations contained in paragraph 21
`
`of the Complaint, and therefore, denies the same. Birdsong denies that Plaintiff Dustin Land
`
`suffered any antitrust injury.
`
`22.
`
`Birdsong denies that Rocky Creek Peanut Farms, LLC sold Runners to Birdsong.
`
`Birdsong is without sufficient information to admit or deny the remainder of the allegations
`
`contained in paragraph 22 of the Complaint, and therefore, denies the same. Birdsong denies that
`
`Plaintiff Rocky Creek Peanut Farms, LLC suffered any antitrust injury.
`
`23.
`
`Birdsong denies that Daniel Howell sold Runners to Birdsong. Birdsong is without
`
`sufficient information to admit or deny the remainder of the allegations contained in paragraph 23
`
`of the Complaint, and therefore, denies the same. Birdsong denies that Plaintiff Daniel Howell
`
`suffered any antitrust injury.
`
`24.
`
`Birdsong denies that L&K Farm Group, LLC sold Runners to Birdsong. Birdsong
`
`is without sufficient information to admit or deny the reminder of the allegations contained in
`
`paragraph 24 of the Complaint, and therefore, denies the same. Birdsong denies that Plaintiff L&K
`
`Farm, Group, LLC suffered any antitrust injury.
`
`25.
`
`Birdsong denies that Lonnie Gilbert sold Runners to Birdsong. Birdsong is without
`
`sufficient information to admit or deny the remainder of the allegations contained in paragraph 25
`
`of the Complaint, and therefore, denies the same. Birdsong denies that Plaintiff Lonnie Gilbert
`
`suffered any antitrust injury.
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00463-RAJ-LRL Document 179 Filed 06/26/20 Page 6 of 26 PageID# 2219
`
`B.
`
`Defendants
`
`26.
`
`Birdsong admits that it is a Virginia corporation headquartered in Suffolk, Virginia.
`
`Birdsong admits that it purchases Runners directly from farmers, and then cleans, shells, and sizes
`
`the Runners to sell to food companies and manufacturers. Birdsong admits that it operates shelling
`
`plants and buying points in Virginia and in other states. Birdsong denies any remaining allegations
`
`in Paragraph 26 of the Complaint.
`
`27.
`
`Birdsong is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations
`
`contained in paragraph 27 of the Complaint, and therefore, denies the same.
`
`28.
`
`Birdsong is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations
`
`contained in paragraph 28 of the Complaint, and therefore, denies the same.
`
`29.
`
`Paragraph 29 of the Complaint contains only internal definitions of the Complaint
`
`to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, Birdsong admits that
`
`Plaintiffs have provided definitions and denies any remaining allegations.
`
`30.
`
`Birdsong denies the allegations contained in paragraph 30 of the Complaint.
`
`IV.
`
`AGENTS AND CO-CONSPIRATORS
`
`31.
`
`32.
`
`Birdsong denies the allegations contained in paragraph 31 of the Complaint.
`
`Paragraph 32 of the Complaint contains only internal characterizations of the claims
`
`in the Complaint to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, Birdsong
`
`denies the allegations contained in paragraph 32 of the Complaint.
`
`33.
`
`34.
`
`Birdsong denies the allegations contained in paragraph 33 of the Complaint.
`
`Birdsong denies the allegations contained in paragraph 34 of the Complaint.
`
`V.
`
`TRADE AND COMMERCE
`
`35.
`
`Birdsong admits that it purchased Runners and sold shelled peanut products in the
`
`United States, including in this judicial district. Birdsong denies any remaining allegations in
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00463-RAJ-LRL Document 179 Filed 06/26/20 Page 7 of 26 PageID# 2220
`
`Paragraph 35 of the Complaint.
`
`36.
`
`Birdsong denies that it controlled the market for Peanut shelling in the United
`
`States. Birdsong is without sufficient information to admit or deny the remainder of the allegations
`
`contained in paragraph 36 of the Complaint, and therefore, denies the same.
`
`37.
`
`Birdsong denies the allegations contained in paragraph 37 of the Complaint.
`
`VI.
`
`FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
`
`A.
`
`Background on the Peanut Production Industry
`
`1.
`
`38.
`
`Peanut Production in the United States.
`
`Birdsong admits that the four major types of peanuts grown in the United States are
`
`Runner, Spanish, Valencia, and Virginia. Birdsong admits that the type of peanut grown varies by
`
`region. Birdsong objects to the terms “primary” and “primarily” as imprecise and indefinite as
`
`used in paragraph 38 of the Complaint. Birdsong denies the remainder of the allegations contained
`
`in paragraph 38 of the Complaint, and specifically denies the existence of any conspiracy.
`
`39.
`
`Birdsong admits that Runners are grown in several states in the Southeast,
`
`Southwest, and Virginia-Carolinas regions of the United States. Birdsong is without sufficient
`
`information to admit or deny the reminder of the allegations contained in paragraph 39 of the
`
`Complaint, and therefore, denies the same.
`
`40.
`
`Birdsong admits that peanuts are produced either on irrigated land or dry land. Any
`
`report referenced in the third sentence of paragraph 40 of the Complaint speaks for itself, and any
`
`allegations to the contrary are denied. Birdsong is without sufficient information to admit or deny
`
`the remainder of the allegations contained in paragraph 40 of the Complaint, and therefore, denies
`
`the same.
`
`41.
`
`Birdsong admits that Runners are planted in the spring and harvested in the fall.
`
`Birdsong denies the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 41 of the Complaint.
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00463-RAJ-LRL Document 179 Filed 06/26/20 Page 8 of 26 PageID# 2221
`
`42.
`
`Birdsong admits that it owns some buying points and contracts with other buying
`
`points. Birdsong admits that the peanuts are transported to those buying points and that the peanuts
`
`are later cleaned, dried, graded, and delivered to shelling plants. Birdsong admits that Birdsong’s
`
`buying points facilitate transactions with farmers. Birdsong denies the remainder of the allegations
`
`to the extent related to Birdsong.
`
`43.
`
`Birdsong admits that it is involved in the peanut production process and that
`
`shelling involves breaking the outer hull or shell of peanuts and removing the kernels. Birdsong
`
`admits that it sells shelled peanuts to food companies and manufacturers. Birdsong is without
`
`sufficient information to admit or deny the remainder of the allegations contained in paragraph 43
`
`of the Complaint, and therefore, denies the same.
`
`2.
`
`44.
`
`Federal Peanut Policy and the Farm Bills.
`
`Birdsong admits there is no futures market for peanuts. Birdsong admits that
`
`weather and other factors could affect the success of a peanut crop harvest. Birdsong is without
`
`sufficient information to admit or deny the remainder of the allegations contained in paragraph 44
`
`of the Complaint, and therefore, denies the same.
`
`45.
`
`Birdsong admits that in 2002, Congress eliminated the quota system under the Farm
`
`Security and Rural Investment Act (the “2002 Farm Bill”). The 2002 Farm Bill speaks for itself,
`
`and any allegations to the contrary are denied. Birdsong is without sufficient information to admit
`
`or deny the remainder of the allegations contained in paragraph 45 of the Complaint, and therefore,
`
`denies the same.
`
`46.
`
`Birdsong admits that in 2014, Congress enacted the Agricultural Act of 2014 (the
`
`“2014 Farm Bill”). The 2014 Farm Bill speaks for itself, and any allegations to the contrary are
`
`denied. Birdsong admits that in 2018, Congress enacted a Farm Bill. Regarding footnote 1, the
`
`2018 Farm Bill speaks for itself, and any allegations to the contrary are denied. Birdsong is without
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00463-RAJ-LRL Document 179 Filed 06/26/20 Page 9 of 26 PageID# 2222
`
`sufficient information to admit or deny the remainder of the allegations contained in paragraph 46
`
`of the Complaint, and therefore, Birdsong denies the same.
`
`3.
`
`47.
`
`Contract Marketing Under the Current Peanut Policy.
`
`Birdsong admits that it uses different contract forms to contract with farmers for
`
`Runners, and that an option payment is provided for in certain of the contracts that Birdsong uses.
`
`The option contracts used by Birdsong speak for themselves, and any allegations to the contrary
`
`are denied. The remainder of the allegations contained in paragraph 47 of the Complaint are too
`
`generic and vague for Birdsong to admit or deny, and therefore, Birdsong denies the same.
`
`4.
`
`48.
`
`Peanuts Are a Commodity.
`
`Birdsong admits that it does not separate its Runners based on grower. Any
`
`information provided by USDA or the Agricultural Marketing Resources Center speaks for itself,
`
`and any allegations to the contrary are denied. The remainder of the allegations contained in
`
`paragraph 48 of the Complaint are too generic and vague for Birdsong to admit or deny, and
`
`therefore, Birdsong denies the same.
`
`5.
`
`The United States Peanut Production Market is a National Market Worth
`Over a Billion Dollars Annually.
`
`49.
`
`Birdsong is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations
`
`contained in paragraph 49 of the Complaint, and therefore, denies the same.
`
`B.
`
`The Structure and Characteristics of the Peanut Shelling Market Render the
`Conspiracy Economically Plausible.
`
`1.
`
`50.
`
`The Peanut Market is Characterized by Inelastic Demand.
`
`Birdsong objects to the term “relatively unaffected” as imprecise and indefinite as
`
`used in paragraph 50 of the Complaint. Birdsong is without sufficient information to admit or
`
`deny the remainder of the allegations contained in paragraph 50 of the Complaint, and therefore,
`
`denies the same.
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00463-RAJ-LRL Document 179 Filed 06/26/20 Page 10 of 26 PageID# 2223
`
`2.
`
`51.
`
`There Are No Significant Substitutes for Peanuts.
`
`Birdsong admits that there are products that have similar attributes to peanuts.
`
`Birdsong admits that peanuts are consumed, processed into foods, contain protein, and are
`
`nutritious. Birdsong is without sufficient information to admit or deny the remainder of the
`
`allegations contained in paragraph 51 of the Complaint, and therefore, denies the same.
`
`3.
`
`The Peanut Shelling Industry is Highly Concentrated and Has Experienced
`High Consolidation.
`
`52.
`
`Any reports issued by the USDA speak for themselves, and any allegations to the
`
`contrary are denied. Birdsong is without sufficient information to admit or deny the remainder of
`
`the allegations contained in paragraph 52 of the Complaint, and therefore, denies the same.
`
`53.
`
`54.
`
`Birdsong denies the allegations contained in paragraph 53 of the Complaint.
`
`Birdsong is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations
`
`contained in paragraph 54 of the Complaint, and therefore, denies the same.
`
`55.
`
`Birdsong is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations
`
`contained in paragraph 55 of the Complaint, and therefore, denies the same.
`
`4.
`
`The Peanut Shelling Industry is Characterized by a Lack of Pricing
`Transparency and Asymmetric Access to Key Market Information.
`
`56.
`
`Birdsong admits that there is no futures market or public exchange for buying and
`
`selling peanuts. Birdsong denies the remainder of the allegations contained in paragraph 56 of the
`
`Complaint.
`
`57.
`
`The unidentified 2004 study speaks for itself, and any allegations to the contrary
`
`are denied. Birdsong admits that it is a member of industry trade associations. Birdsong denies
`
`the remainder of the allegations contained in paragraph 57 of the Complaint.
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00463-RAJ-LRL Document 179 Filed 06/26/20 Page 11 of 26 PageID# 2224
`
`58.
`
`Birdsong denies the allegations in the first sentence of paragraph 58 of the
`
`Complaint. Birdsong is without sufficient information to admit or deny the remainder of the
`
`allegations contained in paragraph 58 of the Complaint, and therefore, denies the same.
`
`5.
`
`The Peanut Shelling Industry Relies on Market Data Provided Voluntarily
`and Confidentially by Shellers.
`
`59.
`
`Birdsong admits that the National Agricultural Statistics Service publishes pricing
`
`information weekly and admits that USDA publishes a National Posted Price. Such publications
`
`speak for themselves, and any allegations to the contrary are denied. Birdsong is without sufficient
`
`information to admit or deny the allegations contained in the third sentence of paragraph 59 of the
`
`Complaint, and therefore, denies the same. Birdsong denies any remaining allegations contained
`
`in paragraph 59 of the Complaint.
`
`60.
`
`Any audit published by the USDA speaks for itself, and any allegations to the
`
`contrary are denied. Birdsong is without sufficient information to admit or deny the remainder of
`
`the allegations contained in paragraph 60 of the Complaint, and therefore, denies the same.
`
`61.
`
`Any audit published by the USDA in 2009 speaks for itself, and any allegations to
`
`the contrary are denied. Birdsong is without sufficient information to admit or deny the remainder
`
`of the allegations contained in paragraph 61 of the Complaint, and therefore, denies the same.
`
`62.
`
`Birdsong admits that it submits pricing data to NASS on a voluntary and
`
`confidential basis. Birdsong is without sufficient information to admit or deny the remainder of
`
`the allegations contained in paragraph 62 of the Complaint, and therefore, denies the same.
`
`63.
`
`Birdsong admits that NASS publishes a Peanut Stocks and Processing report every
`
`month for reported peanut inventory data. Birdsong admits that it submits inventory data to NASS
`
`on a confidential basis. The Peanut Stocks and Processing reports published by NASS and any
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00463-RAJ-LRL Document 179 Filed 06/26/20 Page 12 of 26 PageID# 2225
`
`announcements made by USDA speak for themselves, and any allegations to the contrary are
`
`denied. Birdsong denies all remaining allegations contained in paragraph 63 of the Complaint.
`
`6.
`
`The Peanut Shelling Industry and Golden Peanut’s Parent Company Have
`Previously Been Investigated by the Government for Collusive Action.
`
`64.
`
`Birdsong is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations
`
`contained in paragraph 64 of the Complaint, and therefore, denies the same.
`
`65.
`
`Birdsong is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations
`
`contained in paragraph 65 of the Complaint, and therefore, denies the same.
`
`7.
`
`Defendants Had Numerous Opportunities to Collude.
`
`a.
`
`Geographic Proximity
`
`66.
`
`Birdsong admits that it operates in Georgia and Texas. Birdsong admits it has a
`
`shelling plant in Brownfield, Texas and warehousing in Gorman, Texas. Upon information and
`
`belief, Birdsong admits that Golden and Olam operate in Georgia and Texas. Birdsong is without
`
`sufficient information to admit or deny the remainder of the allegations contained in paragraph 66
`
`of the Complaint, and therefore, denies the same.
`
`67.
`
`Birdsong admits that the United States peanut production is geographically
`
`concentrated in the Southern region of the country. Birdsong admits that it has facilities in
`
`Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Mississippi, and Texas. Birdsong is without sufficient information
`
`to admit or deny the remainder of the allegations contained in paragraph 67 of the Complaint, and
`
`therefore, denies the same.
`
`b.
`
`Trade Associations
`
`68.
`
`Birdsong admits that the it is a member of the American Peanut Shellers
`
`Association, the American Peanut Council, and the Peanut and Tree Nut Processors Association.
`
`Birdsong is without sufficient information to admit or deny the remainder of the allegations
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00463-RAJ-LRL Document 179 Filed 06/26/20 Page 13 of 26 PageID# 2226
`
`contained in the first sentence of paragraph 68 of the Complaint, and therefore, denies the same.
`
`Birdsong denies the second sentence of paragraph 68 of the Complaint.
`
`69.
`
`Birdsong admits that Birdsong and Damascus Peanut Company are members of the
`
`American Peanuts Shellers Association (“APSA”). Birdsong denies that Defendants plus
`
`Damascus Peanut Company “hold nearly all of the market for Peanut shelling.” Birdsong is
`
`without sufficient information to admit or deny the remainder of the allegations contained in
`
`paragraph 69 of the Complaint, and therefore, denies the same.
`
`70.
`
`Birdsong admits that Birdsong officers and employees have served from time to
`
`time on the APSA Board and committees. The current Board and committee members of the
`
`APSA speak for themselves, and any allegations to the contrary are denied.
`
`71.
`
`72.
`
`The APSA website speaks for itself, and any allegations to the contrary are denied.
`
`Birdsong admits that American Peanut Council (“APC”) holds an annual meeting
`
`and circulates materials to its members. The APC material quoted in Paragraph 72 of the Amended
`
`Complaint speaks for itself, and any allegations to the contrary are denied. Birdsong denies any
`
`remaining allegations in paragraph 72 of the Complaint.
`
`73.
`
`Birdsong admits that the Peanut and Tree Nuts Processors Association (“PTNPA”)
`
`is an association of nut industry companies and representatives. Birdsong admits that the PTNPA
`
`has held a four-day Annual Convention. Birdsong admits that it has been a sponsor and/or attendee
`
`of the PTNPA Annual Convention. Birdsong is without sufficient information to admit or deny
`
`the remainder of the allegations contained in paragraph 73 of the Complaint, and therefore, denies
`
`the same.
`
`74.
`
`Birdsong admits that Birdsong personnel have served on the APC and PTNPA
`
`Board of Directors and the APC Export Division Board of Directors. Birdsong is without sufficient
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00463-RAJ-LRL Document 179 Filed 06/26/20 Page 14 of 26 PageID# 2227
`
`information to admit or deny the remainder of the allegations contained in paragraph 74 of the
`
`Complaint, and therefore, denies the same.
`
`75.
`
`Birdsong admits that the APSA and APC have held a joint meeting known as the
`
`USA Peanut Congress. Birdsong admits that it has been a sponsor and that certain of its personnel
`
`attend the USA Peanut Congress. Birdsong is without sufficient information to admit or deny the
`
`remainder of the allegations contained in paragraph 75 of the Complaint, and therefore, denies the
`
`same.
`
`76.
`
`Birdsong admits that it is one of the founders of the Peanut Institute. Birdsong
`
`admits that certain of its personnel have held leadership positions in the Peanut Institute, including
`
`Dr. Darlene Cowart, Charles Birdsong, and Jeff Johnson. Birdsong is without sufficient
`
`information to admit or deny the remainder of the allegations contained in paragraph 76 of the
`
`Complaint, and therefore, denies the same.
`
`77.
`
`Birdsong admits that it is a member of the National Peanut Buying Points
`
`Association (“NPBPA”). Birdsong admits that members of the NPBPA receive industry
`
`information, lobbying representation, and access to educational conferences and leadership
`
`programs. Birdsong admits that David Rushing has served on NPBPA’s Board of Directors.
`
`Birdsong is without sufficient information to admit or deny the remainder of the allegations
`
`contained in paragraph 77 of the Complaint, and therefore, denies the same.
`
`c. Direct Communications
`
`78.
`
`Birdsong conducts legitimate business transactions with Golden and Olam and talks
`
`to them periodically in connection with such business. Birdsong is without sufficient information
`
`to admit or deny the remainder of the allegations contained in paragraph 78 of the Complaint, and
`
`therefore, denies the same.
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00463-RAJ-LRL Document 179 Filed 06/26/20 Page 15 of 26 PageID# 2228
`
`79.
`
`8.
`
`80.
`
`81.
`
`82.
`
`Birdsong denies the allegations contained in paragraph 79 of the Complaint.
`
`There Are High Barriers to Entry in the Peanut Shelling Market.
`
`Birdsong denies the allegations in paragraph 80 of the Complaint.
`
`Birdsong denies the allegations in paragraph 81 of the Complaint.
`
`Birdsong denies the allegations contained in the first sentence of paragraph 82 of
`
`the Complaint. Birdsong is without sufficient information to admit or deny the remainder of the
`
`allegations contained in paragraph 82 of the Complaint, and therefore, denies the same.
`
`83.
`
`Birdsong admits that it owns or contracts with buying points and that peanuts are
`
`delivered to and handled at buying points. Birdsong is without sufficient information to admit or
`
`deny the remainder of the allegations contained in paragraph 83 of the Complaint, and therefore,
`
`denies the same.
`
`84.
`
`Birdsong denies that it is difficult for a new entrant to obtain buying points.
`
`Birdsong is without sufficient information to admit or deny the remainder of the allegations
`
`contained in paragraph 84 of the Complaint, and therefore, denies the same.
`
`85.
`
`Birdsong is without sufficient information to admit or deny the vague and generic
`
`allegations contained in paragraph 85 of the Complaint, and therefore, denies the same.
`
`C.
`
`Despite Significant Market Changes, the Prices of Raw, Harvested Runner Peanuts
`Paid to Farmers Have Remained Low and Notably Stagnant Since 2014.
`
`86.
`
`Birdsong admits that the USDA announces the NPP weekly. Birdsong admits that
`
`the exact formula used to calculate the NPP is not publicly available. Birdsong is without sufficient
`
`information to admit or deny the remainder of the allegations contained in paragraph 86 of the
`
`Complaint, and therefore, denies the same.
`
`87.
`
`To the extent that USDA has produced a graph, the graph speaks for itself, and any
`
`allegations to the contrary are denied.
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00463-RAJ-LRL Document 179 Filed 06/26/20 Page 16 of 26 PageID# 2229
`
`88.
`
`Birdsong denies the first sentence of paragraph 88 of the Complaint that market
`
`factors fail to explain the Runner prices since 2014. Birdsong admits that weather can affect
`
`Runners inventory. Birdsong is without sufficient information to admit or deny the remainder of
`
`the allegations contained in paragraph 88 of the Complaint, and therefore, denies the same.
`
`89.
`
`Birdsong is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations
`
`contained in paragraph 89 of the Complaint, and therefore, denies the same.
`
`90.
`
`NASS data and The Peanut Grower publication speak for themselves, and any
`
`allegations to the contrary are denied. Birdsong is without sufficient information to admit or deny
`
`the remainder of the allegations contained in paragraph 90 of the Complaint and therefore, denies
`
`the same.
`
`91.
`
`NASS data speaks for itself, and any allegations to the contrary are denied.
`
`Birdsong is without sufficient information to admit or deny the remainder of the allegations
`
`contained in paragraph 91 of the Complaint, and therefore, denies the same.
`
`D.
`
`Birdsong and Golden Peanut Conspired With One Another to Manipulate USDA
`Data and Depress Prices Paid to Peanut Farmers.
`
`92.
`
`93.
`
`94.
`
`Birdsong denies the allegations contained in paragraph 92 of the Complaint.
`
`Birdsong denies the allegations contained in paragraph 93 of the Complaint.
`
`The Peanut Grower publication speaks for itself, and any allegations to the contrary
`
`are denied. Birdsong admits that the USDA, in July 2016, stated that it overestimated the carry
`
`forward of peanut supply and subsequently USDA corrected its mistake. Birdsong denies the
`
`remainder of the allegations contained in paragraph 94 of the Complaint.
`
`95.
`
`Birdsong admits that NASS price data is gathered from shellers on a voluntary and
`
`confidential basis. Birdsong denies that reporting of inventory data is voluntary. Birdsong denies
`
`the remainder of the allegations contained in paragraph 95 of the Complaint.
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00463-RAJ-LRL Document 179 Filed 06/26/20 Page 17 of 26 PageID# 2230
`
`96.
`
`Birdsong admits that the USDA held an educational seminar in December 2016
`
`with the American Peanut Shellers Association. Birdsong is without sufficient information to
`
`admit or deny the remainder of the allegations contained in paragraph 96 of the Complaint, and
`
`therefore, denies the same.
`
`97.
`
`Birdsong admits that its personnel attended the PTNPA and NPBPA meetings in
`
`January and February of 2016. Birdsong denies the remainder of the allegations contained in
`
`paragraph 97 of the Complaint.
`
`98.
`
`99.
`
`Birdsong denies the allegations contained in paragraph 98 of the Complaint.
`
`Birdsong denies the allegations contained in paragraph 99 of the Complaint.
`
`VII. CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS
`
`100. Birdsong denies that Plaintiffs are entitled to certification of any class under Rule
`
`23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Birdsong denies the remainder of any allegations
`
`contained