Rabobank, a Dutch financial company, argued on Monday that the Northern District of Illinois should dismiss claims against it in the consolidated lawsuit regarding anti-competitive activities in the broiler chicken industry. The defendant claimed that the Direct Action Plaintiffs’ allegations in their Amended Consolidated Complaint were not sufficient and that they did not contest Rabobank’s arguments in its opening memorandum.
In its reply, the defendant said the plaintiffs agreed that to keep the claims from being dismissed “they must allege that Rabobank knew of the alleged output-reduction conspiracy, was aware of its scope, agreed to play a defined role in it, and furthered the conspiracy in a meaningful way.” Instead of addressing this, however, Rabobank said the “plaintiffs attack straw men and rely on evidence outside their complaint to argue that they plausibly have alleged Rabobank joined a massive, nationwide, decade-long conspiracy to reduce output in a market in which Rabobank never participated with numerous parties with which Rabobank had no relationship.”
Rabo AgriFinance LLC, Utrecht-America Holdings Inc., Utrecht-America Finance Co., and Rabobank USA Financial Corporation (collectively, Rabobank) alleged in their reply that the plaintiffs have ignored its arguments, citing specific examples. The defendant said that the plaintiffs cited seven cases where a “non-competitor” was found to be in violation of the Sherman Act, however, Rabobank said that in six of these cases the defendant was “alleged to be a critical player in the conspiracy without which the conspiracy could not have occurred.” The other case reportedly affirms that the allegations against Rabobank should be dismissed.
Monday’s filing was in response to some plaintiffs, including Campbell Soup Company, Sysco, and Target, filing a memorandum against Rabobank’s motion to dismiss on March 31. The plaintiffs purported that since Rabobank has been the “leading lender to the poultry industry in the United States, and globally,” it is impacted by the industry’s performance and sought to reduce production of broiler chickens to advance its own interests.
In response to allegations that Rabobank had motive to join the conspiracy, the defendant claimed that the argument is both incorrect and not relevant. Further, Rabobank claimed that allegations that it encouraged poultry companies to reduce supply are not sufficient to allege conspiracy under the Sherman Act.
Rabobank is represented by Freeborn & Peters LLP. The Rabobank defendants were added to the matter by the direct action plaintiffs in an amended complaint filed in January.
