Document evOj0dRw3L4ymarV7YoowLk0e

.' V ? V ' . ' JAN 12 TO V ^ ,," CLERK, U. S. DIStr?JCT; COUIIT UNITED STATES DISTRICT- COURT 6REENS90R0, t\\ C ; ; . " ; , Pgss<'.'k Middle District-of-North Carolina . ' y ~ DELMAR FRANKLIN WOOD, Plaintiff vs. SWIFT 4 COMPANY; WILSON LAUREL FARMS, INC.'; HOLLY FARMS POULTRY INDUSTRIES, INC.; and A.-W. PERDUE, . Defendants C O H P L A I li t C^z-c-us JURISDICTION AND VENUE . 1. This action is brought against the above-named defendants under v- Section 4 of the Act ox Congress of October f-14, 1914, Ch. 323, 38 Stat. 731, as amended (15 USC 8 15) commonly known-as the Clayton Act, to recover treble the damages sustained by the plaintiff due to the violations of--Section 1 of the Act of Congress of July 2, 1890, Ch. 647, 26 Stat. 209 (15 USC H 1) commonly known as the Sherman Act, and for other relief, said violations having occurred in the engagement and disengagement of poultry producers, as herein after defined. ' - .. . ; ; ' " ' 2. The plaintiff is a producer of poultry in northwestern North Carolina, more specifically located in the county of Surry. 1 3. Each of the Defendants transact business or the practices alleged herein affect business within the Middle District of North Carolina. 4. That the defendant. Swift . Company is a Delaware Corporation authorized to do business and is doing business in the State of North Carolina with its office and registered agent, C. T. Corporation System, 111 Corcoran Street, Durham, North Carolina. That the defendant, Wilson Laurel Farms, Inc., is a Delaware Corporation authorized to do business and is doing business in the State of North Carolina with its office in Dobson, North Carolina. That the defendant, Holly Farms Poultry Industries, Inc., is a North Carolina corporation organized and existing under the -laws of the State of North Carolina with its principle office and place of business in Wilkesboro, North Carolina. That the defendant, A. W. Perdue, is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Maryland, with its principle office m-'r -T PCB-ARCH-EXT0378613 >&&l -place I busihes* in;SaUsb'uf'y* Maryland, and is authorized to do;business ix tbs. Stole i Ktth CatUna, with' its office in Statesville, North Carolina TERMS 5. As used herein: (a) The tern poultry producer means that party who contract with a poultry company, the terms of s being more specifically stated in paragraph 6. (b) The term.poultry company refers to that party who by agreement with the poultry producer furnishes such producer with laying : hens for the specific purpose of supplying said poultry company with hatching eggs. (c) The term flock supervisor means that person employed by the poultry company to supervise the production of hatching eggs while such eggs are in the possession of the poultry producer. (d) The term laying hen means a chicken the age of approximately one day to 18 to 20 weeks which is supplied to the poultry producer by the poultry company . NATURE OF TRADE AMD COMMERCE . . V.. / 6. The nature of the business which is the subject of this complaint is as follows: An agreement is entered into between the poultry producer and the poultry company whereby the producer is furnished with from 8,500 to 10,000 young hens along with necessary feed and medical supplies to accomplish the laying of hatching eggs, the poultry producer furnishes all lights, water, housing, feeders, drinkers, liter, labor and other equipment and facilities necessary for rearing and laying to properly care for said chickens according to the recommendations of the poultry company. The poultry company supplies to the poultry producer the young hens at an age of from one day to 18 to 20 weeks. At an age of approximately 22 weeks the hens begin laying eggs which are collected, graded and cleaned and placed in cooling facilities by the poultry producer. Approximately t;ri.ce weekly the company collects the eggs from the poultry producer, such eggs are then transported by the poultry company to its hatcheries where the eggs are placed in incubators for the period necessary for them to hatch, lipon hatching, the young birds are cared for up until the time they arc slaughtered and prepared for distribution through both intrastate and interstate. -2- PCB-ARCH-EXT0378614  \ .r-r-vy-r; . , ' ' '-. , . ' ' ' ' . . ' " ' / . . ' . _ .,r' v; 7. The acts1 ..alleged in this complaint to have been done by.each of-'.the"' defendants were authorized,.-ordered, or done by the officers, agents, employees or representatives of each defendant, while actively, engaged in the management, direction, or control of its affairs and-acting on its behalf v;ithin the scope of their employment. . . \ \ ' . ' OFFENSE CHARGED " ' 8,. Beginning approximately around August, 1971, and continuing-until ;v; -V the filing of this suit, the defendants engaged in an unlawful, combination and conspiracy in unreasonable restraint., of interstate trade. and commerce in poultry production in violation of Section 1 of. the,Act of Congress of July 2, . 1890 as amended (15 USC 81) commonly known as the. Sherman Act. \ ' 9. The aforesaid combination and conspiracy consisted of a continuing agreement, understanding, and concert of action among the Defendants to dis- . continue the supplying of young laying hens to the plaintiff at a time in which ' the plaintiff had complied with the terras of the contract between himself and . the defendants. That the said defendants control the production and growing of eggs, hatching of chickens and the entire^poultry- producing, process in the area in which the plaintiff has an opportunity to do business and to sell his poultry products, where no other market is available to the plaintiff other then the market which.is controlled by the defendants. That the combination and conspiracy between the defendants to discontinue-supplying young laying hens to the plaintiff constitutes a monopoly over the poultry production . industry in Northwestern Worth Carolina.- 10. In formulating and effectuating the aforesaid combination and conspiracy, the defendants in combination and conspiracy did the following: That during the year of 1966, the plaintiff along with the aid of his father, constructed and equipped chicken houses at a costs of approximately 30,000.00. During the year of 1966, the plaintiff entered into a contract with the defendant, Wilson-Laurel Farms, Inc.,for the production of hatching eggs. The plaintiff had additional contracts with the defendant, Wilson, until the year 1970, at which time the plaintiff, completed his contract obligations with, defendant, Wilson and entered into a two-year contract with defendant, Holly - Farms Poultry Industries, Inc. Defendant, Holly Farms, supplied plaintiff with . . . * - " "* ' young laying hens which due to no fault o.f the plaintiff's begin laying eggs at a premature date. Defendant, Holly Farms, in addition supplied the plaintiff ' ... -3- ' ' . PCB-ARCH-EXT0378615 I with a poor quality of feed which along tiith the'premature laying of eggs causeil' plaintiff to suffer a loss in egg production. Defendant, Holly Farms, informed plaintiff that his loss in egg production was due to poor quality of'..work" performed by the plaintiff's employees whereupon the plaintiff discharged said employees and acquired additional employees. Defendant, Holly Farms also , encouraged the plaintiff to make improvements upon his poultry production : facilities whereupon the plaintiff spent $9,000.00 in improving his. means of production. During August, 1971, the defendant, Holly Farms, and the plaintiff entered into a supplemental contract in which the plaintiff was- to receive . young laying hens from defendant. Holly Farms, for.an additional two-year period. That shortly after the defendant, Holly Farms, and the plaintiff entered into this supplemental contract, the defendant, Holly Farms, informed plaintiff that he was not to receive any further laying hens. Defendant, Holly Farms, offered no explanation for this action. The plaintiff thereupon contact ed other poultry companies, additional defendants herein, and without explanati was denied a supply of young laying hens. The concerted action of the defendan poultry companies has resulted in a concerted, refusal to deal trith the plaintiff such concerted refusal being a per se violation of Section 1 of the Act of Congress of July 2, 1390, Ch. 637, 26 Stat. 209 (15 USC 1) commonly known as the Sherman Act. ... ' , . . ... ... 11. The aforesaid combination and. .conspiracy has had the following effects among others: (a) The poultry producers including the plaintiff have been deprive of free and open competition in the production of poultry. ' (b) The poultry producers including the plaintiff have been deprive! of their major.means of .livelihood. ' . . (c) The poultry producers, including the.plaintiff, have been forced to make large investments in order to enter the poultry business and now as a result of the illegal action of the defendants are faced with a loss of such investments. 12. By reason of the defendants con.-piracy herein above alleged, the plaintiff has been unable to continue his business of poultry production such business he could have continued under natural conditions of competition in i* ' t absence of any such conspiracy, and the plaintiff has thereby been damaged. , -6- . ' 4, rsssz? -... PCB-ARCH-EXT0378616 ~'**?*JT. ' '*" ** >`.'7 . .. ` - - ..................... 13. As a result of the above described wrongful acts and conduct of the defendants, the plaintiff- has suffered loss and damages in the amount of . ' $75",000.00 and under the provisions of Section 4 of the Act of Congress of , October 14, 1914, Ch. 323, 38 Stat. 731, as^amended (15 USC- 15) commonly kno*ai as the Clayton Act, the plaintiff is entitled to recover of the . defendants threefold the damages by him sustained, together with the costs of this suit and reasonable attorney's fee. . - UHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands: . ... (a) Judgment against-defendants in .favor of-'plaintiff for threefolc the damages sustained by him, together .with the costs of suit including a reasonable attorney's fee; (b) That the defendants, their present and future officers, directors, employees, agents, successors, assigns, be1 preliminarily and per petually enjoined, restrained, and prohibited from entering into, adhering to, renewing, maintaining, or futhering, directly or indirectly, any like or simils combination and conspiracy to restrain trade and commerce in the production of poultry as hereinbefore alleged.- This the, / FRANKLIN SMITH, Attorney for Plaintiff 111 West Market Street, P. 0. Box 307 Elkin, North Carolina 28621 Telephone: (9-19) 835-1351 day of January, 1973". PCB-ARCH-EXT0378617