You are on page 1of 7


USDA JJudicial Officer
udicial Off rules
icer rules on GIPSA
complaint against IBP under the P Pac
ac ers
ker s
and Stoc ards
kyar ds Act
In a significant decision under the Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921, 7 U.S.C. §§
181-229, the USDA Judicial Officer has determined that a right of first refusal
granted to the nation’s largest packer, IBP, Inc., under its agreement with several
Kansas feedlots had the effect or the potential effect of suppressing competition,

INSIDE thus violating section 202 [7 U.S.C. § 192] of the Act. The Judicial Officer, however,
also concluded that the USDA’s Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Admin-
istration (GIPSA) had failed to prove that other elements of the agreement violated
the Act. In re IBP, Inc., P & S Docket No. D-95-0049 (July 31, 1998). IBP has sought
judicial review of the right of first refusal portion of the decision.
• Agricultural law GIPSA, the Secretary’s delegate for administratively enforcing the Packers and
Stockyards Act, filed its Complaint against IBP in August 1995. The filing generated
bibliography considerable attention because it followed criticism that the Secretary had been less
than zealous in its oversight of potentially anticompetitive practices in the
• Part I: The agricultural meatpacking industry. See, e.g., U.S. Gen. Accounting Office, Packers and Stock-
provisions of the yards Administration: Oversight of Livestock Market Competitiveness Needs To Be
1999 Omnibus Enhanced (Pub. No. RCED-92-36, Oct. 1991). To some, including a USDA advisory
committee on agricultural concentration formed by Secretary Glickman, the action
Appropriations Bill against IBP was characterized as representing a “commitment” by the current
Secretary to enforce the Packers and Stockyards Act. USDA Advisory Committee on
Agricultural Concentration, Concentration in Agriculture 11 (1996)[hereinafter
Concentration in Agriculture]; see also Robert H. Brown, USDA Files Complaint
Against IBP For Favoritism, Feedstuffs, Aug. 7, 1995, at 3; Rod Smith, IBP Argues
Marketing Pacts Not Inappropriate, Feedstuffs, Sept. 4, 1995, at 6.
GIPSA’s Complaint was filed against the backdrop of historic high levels of
concentration in the meatpacking industry. “For example, the four largest packers
Solicitation of articles: All AALA accounted for 82 percent of steer and heifer slaughter in 1994, versus only 72 percent
members are invited to submit in 1990 and 36 percent in 1980.” Packers and Stockyards Programs, GIPSA,
articles to the Update. Please in- Concentration in the Red Meat Packing Industry 2 (1996). In the broadest sense, it
represented a challenge to one aspect of this concentration: so-called “captive
clude copies of decisions and leg-
Continued on page 2
islation with the article. To avoid
duplication of effort, please no-
tify the Editor of your proposed North
Nor Carolina
th Car Supreme
olina Supr Court
eme Cour modifi
t modif ies
premises liability
In Nelson v. Freeland, no. 216A98, 1998 N.C. Lexis 849 (N.C. 1998) )decided

IN FUTURE December 31) a sharply divided North Carolina Supreme Court abolished the long-
standing common law distinction between invitees and licensees. The case arose
from injuries suffered by plaintiff, Nelson, when he tripped over a stick that

• Part II: The
defendant, Freeland, had inadvertently left upon his porch. Nelson had come to
Freeland’s house to pick him up to take him to a meeting. In a comprehensive
analysis the Court noted that the modern trend is toward abolishing the common-
law trichotomy in favor of a reasonable person standard. It noted that England
agricultural provisions abolished the trichotomy by statute in 1957, and the U.S. Supreme Court abolished
of the 1999 Omnibus the trichotomy shortly thereafter in admiralty cases. The N.C. Supreme Court
Appropriations Bill counted eleven U.S. jurisdictions that have abolished the trichotomy between
invitee, licensee, and trespasser entirely, and fourteen that have abolished the
invitee-licensee distinction while maintaining the limited duty rule for trespassers.
The Court did the latter, abolishing the invitee-licensee distinction, replacing it with
“a standard of reasonable care toward all lawful visitors.” It retained the common-
law rule for trespass that a trespasser has no basis for claiming protection beyond
that the landowner must refrain from doing willful injury. The Court reasoned that
to abolish this distinction would place an unfair burden upon the landowner that has
Continued on page 6

supply” arrangements by packers. ward contracts brought slightly lower the highest price paid in Kansas for at
Captive supply arrangements are a prices than cash market cattle with simi- least 500 cattle in a given week, as re-
form of vertical integration or “coordina- lar characteristics. This difference, ac- ported by the USDA. Cattle that were top
tion” by packers. They often are struc- cording to the Committee, was attribut- quality received this price, known as the
tured as forward contracts or marketing able to lowered producer risk under the “Kansas practical top.” Cattle of lesser
agreements. According to the 1996 Re- forward contract. Id. Marketing agree- quality received a discounted bid. Id.
port of the USDA Advisory Committee on ments, on the other hand, resulted in Bids were made on Monday and had to
Agricultural Concentration, “these ar- slightly higher than cash market prices. be accepted or rejected by Wednesday,
rangements have a tendency to thin mar- The Committee noted, however, that thus giving producers the benefit of any
ket price reporting (reduce the volume on “[h]igher prices would be expected if increase in market value during the week.
which reported prices are based) and slaughterers use marketing agreements IBP committed to bid on every pen of
shorten the weekly marketing ‘window,’ to procure cattle of higher quality or to cattle and had until Saturday of the
which can disadvantage suppliers who lower processing costs.” Id. following week to pick up the cattle. IBP
do not have a packer arrangement, and At issue in IBP was a “captive supply” also had the right of first refusal for all
distort reported market prices down- arrangement in the form of a marketing cattle on which it bid the Kansas practi-
ward.” Concentration in Agriculture,su- agreement. Specifically, the issue was cal top. Finally, IBP agreed to share
pra at 10. whether an exclusive marketing agree- slaughter information with the Beef
The Committee also found that “large ment, known as the Beef Marketing Marketing Group. Id. at 12-13.
sellers are far more likely to participate Agreement, that IBP had entered into Several months after its inception, the
in captive supply arrangements than with several Kansas feedlots, known as Agreement was changed to provide that
small sellers.” Id. Though large feedlots the Beef Marketing Group, violated sec- the basis for bids was the reported Kan-
are more likely than smaller suppliers to tion 202(a) and (b), 7 U.S.C. § 192(a), (b), sas top price for 2,500 cattle or more. The
participate in a captive supply arrange- of the Act. time for accepting or rejecting bids was
ment, returns to participating feedlots Section 202(a) prohibits packers from moved back from Wednesday to Tuesday,
may vary depending on the form of the engaging in, or using, “any unfair, un- and the pick up date was moved back
arrangement. For example, the Commit- justly discriminatory, or deceptive trade from Saturday to Friday. Id. Later, other
tee found that cattle obtained under for- practice or device.” 7 U.S.C. § 192(a). changes were made, including the addi-
Section 202(b) prohibits packers from tion of a grade and yield option. The right
making or giving “any undue or unrea- of first refusal was expanded to give IBP
sonable preference or advantage to any that right where IBP had bid on pens
particular person or locality in any re- when it had bid the Kansas top price
spect whatsoever, or subject[ing] any minus 50 cents. Id. at 14.
particular person or locality to any undue Under the right of first refusal, IBP
or unreasonable prejudice or disadvan- only had to match the previous high bid;
VOL. 16, NO. 2, WHOLE NO. 183 January, 1999 tage in any respect whatsoever.” Id. § it did not have to bid a higher price. Thus,
AALA Editor..........................Linda Grim McCormick
192(b). IBP could “enter a bid, await, but not
Rt. 2, Box 292A, 2816 C.R. 163 In its action against IBP, GIPSA al- participate in, any additional bidding,
Alvin, TX 77511 leged that IBP’s use of the Beef Market- and obtain cattle merely by matching any
Phone: (281) 388-0155
FAX: (281) 388-0155 ing Agreement during the period from bid that may be higher than [its] bid.” Id.
E-mail: February 1994 to the filing of the com- at 15. This arrangement differed in sev-
Contributing Editors: Christopher R. Kelley, University plaint on August 3, 1995, violated sec- eral respects from the traditional method
of Arkansas School of Law, Fayetteville, AR; Drew L. tions 202(a) and (b) of the Act by giving an of selling cattle in Kansas. For example,
Kershen, College of Law, The University of Oklahoma,
Norman, OK; Karen R. Krub, FLAG, St. Paul, MN;
undue or unreasonable preference to the under the traditional method, the first
Theodore Feitshans, North Carolina State University, feedlots who were parties to the Agree- buyer who arrived at the feedlot was
Raleigh, NC ment by guaranteeing those feedlots a permitted to place the first bid. Other
For AALA membership information, contact
William P. Babione, Office of the Executive Director, high price for their cattle. GIPSA also buyers were then given the opportunity
Robert A. Leflar Law Center, University of Arkansas, alleged that IBP subjected similarly situ- to bid. However, the advantage of being
Fayetteville, AR 72701.
ated feedlots in IBP’s procurement area the first bidder arose from the fact that if
Agricultural Law Update is published by the to an undue or unreasonable prejudice or all subsequent bids by other buyers
American Agricultural Law Association, Publication
office: Maynard Printing, Inc., 219 New York Ave., Des
disadvantage by refusing to purchase matched the first bid, the first bidder
Moines, IA 50313. All rights reserved. First class livestock of comparable quality from those obtained the cattle. For that reason, buy-
postage paid at Des Moines, IA 50313. feedlots under the same terms made avail- ers frequently arrived at the feedlot the
This publication is designed to provide accurate and able to the Beef Marketing Group. In re night before a sale. Id. at 10.
authoritative information in regard to the subject IBP, slip op. at 1-2. After the inception of the Beef Market-
matter covered. It is sold with the understanding that
the publisher is not engaged in rendering legal, Before entering into the Beef Market- ing Agreement, IBP continued to buy
accounting, or other professional service. If legal advice ing Agreement with IBP, the Beef Mar- cattle, under traditional methods, from
or other expert assistance is required, the services of
a competent professional should be sought.
keting Group had a marketing agree- Kansas feedlots that were not members
Views expressed herein are those of the individual ment with Excel. When that agreement of the Beef Marketing Group. Other pack-
authors and should not be interpreted as statements of terminated, IBP entered into the Beef ers also bought cattle from these feed-
policy by the American Agricultural Law Association.
Marketing Agreement “under terms es- lots. Id. at 14. Also, two members of the
Letters and editorial contributions are welcome and sentially proposed by the Beef Marketing Beef Marketing Group, while remaining
should be directed to Linda Grim McCormick, Editor,
Rt. 2, Box 292A, 2816 C.R. 163, Alvin, TX 77511. Group.” Id. at 12. Unlike the traditional members of the Group, stopped selling
method in Kansas for live cattle sales in cattle under the terms of the Beef Mar-
Copyright 1999 by American Agricultural Law
Association. No part of this newsletter may be
which bids are expressed in dollars per keting Agreement. Id.
reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, hundredweight, the Beef Marketing The Judicial Officer found that the
electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, Agreement provided that bids would be feedlots that were not members of the
recording, or by any information storage or retrieval
system, without permission in writing from the adjusted based on the quality of the cattle Beef Marketing Group continued to re-
publisher. purchased by IBP. ceive competitive prices after the forma-
At its inception, the Agreement con- tion of the Beef Marketing Agreement.
templated that bids would be based on Cont. on p.3

Ag icultural
ricultur law
al la bibliogr
w bibliog aphy
Administrative law Federal loan programs (Farmers Home Administra-
Note, Food Stamp Trafficking: Why Small Groceries tion/Farm Service Agency) Land sales/finance, mortgages/foreclosures
NeedJudicialProtectionFromtheDepartmentofAgricul- S. Carpenter, Farmers’ Guide to Getting a Guaran- Nelson, The Contract for Deed as a Mortgage: the
ture (and From Their Own Employees),96Mich.L.Rev. teed Loan (FLAG 1st ed.,1998). Case for the Restatement Approach,1998B.Y.U.L.Rev.
2156-2184 (1998). 1111-1167.
Food and drug law
Animals—animal rights Comment, Food Safety Enforcement Enhancement Patents, trademarks & trade secrets
Comment, If Animal Rights Activists Could Write Act of 1997: Putting Public Health Before the Meat Comment, Everybody’s Got Something to Hide Ex-
Federal Research Policy, 4 Animal L. 211-238 (1998). Iindustry’s Bottom Line, 50 Admin. L. Rev. 679-697 ceptMeandMyPatentedMonkey:PatentabilityofCloned
Eck & Bovett, Oregon Dog Control Laws and Due (1998). Organisms,16J.MarshallJ.Computer&Information L.
Process: a Case Study, 4 Animal L. 95-110 (1998). 971-995 (1998).
— the Eligibility of Nonhu-
Wise, Hardly a Revolution— Forestry
manAnimalsforDignity-rightsinaLiberalDemocracy,22 Krahl & Henderson, Uncertain Steps Toward Com- Taxation
Vt. L. Rev. 793-915 (1998). munity Forestry: a Case Study in Northern New Mexico, Note, Property Tax Appraisal of Conservation Ease-
38 Nat. Resources J. 53-84 (1998). mentsinUtah,18J.Land,Resources&Envtl.L.369-398
Biotechnology (1998).
DirectiveoftheEuropeanParliamentandoftheCoun- Hunting, recreation & wildlife
cilontheLegalProtectionofBiotechnologicalInventions, J. Copeland, Recreational Access to Private Lands: Torts
29Int’lRev.Indus.Prop.&CopyrightL.567-578(1998). Liability Problems and Solutions (NCALRI 2nd ed.1998). Centner, Reforming Outdated Fence Law Provisions:
Kolodninsky, Wang & Conner, rBST Labeling and Good Fences Make Good Neighbors Only if They are
Notification: Lessons from Vermont, 13 Choices 38-40 International trade Fair, 12 J. Envtl. L. & Litig. 267-304 (1997).
(No.3, 1998). Comment, Negotiating Environmental Standards for McEowen & Harl, Iowa Supreme Court Upholds Prop-
Note, InternationalTradeandEmergingGeneticRegu- an Agricultural Free Trade Agreement Between Chile erty Rights of Landowners and Invalidates Nuisance
latory Regimes, 29 L. & Pol’y Int’l Bus. 415-450 (1998). and the United States, 4 Sw. J.L. & Trade Americas Protection Law, 15 Agric. L. Update 4-5 (Oct. 1998).
Thompson, Have Americans Accepted Food Biotech- 227-244 (1997).
nology? 13 Choices 31-33 (No.3, 1998). McNiel, The First Case Under the WTO’s Sanitary and Trade regulation/antitrust
Phytosanitary Agreement: the European Union’s Hor- Connor, Lysine: A Case Study in International Price-
Environmental issues mone Ban,39Va.J.Int’lL.89-134(1998). Fixing, 13 Choices 13-19 (No. 3, 1998).
Melton, Weber v. Trinity Meadows Raceway,15Agric. Symposium: The Florida-Mexico Tomato Conflict:
L. Update 1, 607 (Oct. 1998). What Has Happened and Where Might It Go From Here? Uniform Commercial Code
Note, Nonpoint Source Pollution and Chesapeake 11 Fla. J. Int’l L. 233-408 (1997). Article Seven
Bay Pfiesteria Blooms: the Chickens Come Home to · The Hypothetical Problem, 233-235; Kershen, Article 7: Documents of Title – 1997 Devel-
Roost, 32 Ga. L. Rev. 1195-1225 (1998). · Introductory Remarks; 235-297; opments, 53 Bus. Law. 1503-1510 (1998).
Smith & Ribaudo, The New Safe Drinking Water Act: · Macrory, U.S. Restrictions on Imports of Winter
Implications for Agriculture, 13 Choices 26-30 (No. 3, Vegetables from Mexico, 299-317; Water rights: agriculturally related
1998). · Powell & Barnett, The role of United States trade Fort, The Western Water Policy Review Advisory
laws in resolving the Florida-Mexico tomato conflict, Commission: Another Look at Western Water, 37 Nat.
Farm labor 319-370; Resources J. 909-922 (1997).
General & social welfare · Salonen, “One tomato, two tomato ...” Selection of Kaiser&Phillips, Dividing the Waters: Water Market-
LeRoy, Farm Labor Contractors and Agricultural Pro- trade remedy laws in the Florida-Mexico tomato conflict, ing as a Conflict Resolution Strategy in the Edwards
ducers as Joint Employers Under the Migrant and Sea- 371-397; AquiferRegion,38NaturalResourcesJ.411-444(1998).
sonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act: an Empirical · VanSickle, A compromise in the fresh tomato trade Naeser & Bennett, The Cost of Noncompliance: The
Public Policy Analysis, 19 Berkeley J. Employment & dispute,399-408. Economic Value of Water in the Middle Arkansas River
Labor L. 175-228 (1998). Walker, Keeping the WTO from Becoming the “World Valley, 38 Natural Res. J. 445-463 (1998).
J. K. Scheiderich, Humanity of the Land: an Agricul- Trans-scienceOrganization”:ScientificUncertainty,Sci- If you desire a copy of any article or further
tural Reference Handbook—Employers, Employees and ence Policy, and Factfinding in the Growth Hormones information, please contact the Law School Library
State Employment Law (NCARLI 1998). Dispute, 31 Cornell Int’l L.J. 251-320 (1998). nearest your office.
—Drew L. Kershen, Professor of Law, The
University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK

PSA/Cont. from page 2
Id. at 14-15. The Judicial Officer also The Judicial Officer, however, con- three extra days.
held that the testimony of the owners cluded that GIPSA had failed to prove Each of these non-price conditions of
and operators of these feedlots “failed to that $0.43 accurately represented the sale were valuable to IBP, according to
show that they were harmed by the Beef price difference. Though the evidence the Judicial Officer. The right of first
Marketing Agreement.” Id. at 15. Sev- indicated that IBP “must have, on aver- refusal helped IBP maintain a steady
eral of these feedlots, in fact, expanded in age, paid a higher price for cattle pur- supply of cattle; it allowed IBP’s cattle
capacity and occupancy during this pe- chased under the terms of the Beef Mar- buyers to be the first bidder at Beef
riod. Id. keting Agreement than it did on other Marketing Group feedlots without hav-
In its Complaint, GIPSA alleged that, transactions,” the amount was “uncer- ing to be the first to arrive; and “it
through the Beef Marketing Agreement, tain and unproven.” Id. at 24. eliminate[d] repeated telephone calls and
IBP provided the Beef Marketing Group The Judicial Officer also concluded that trips to the feedlots during the negotiat-
members with a price preference of $0.43 IBP received benefits under the Beef ing process.” Id. at 25-28. Similarly, the
per hundredweight. This preference, ac- Marketing Agreement for the higher price extra days for picking up the cattle ben-
cording to GIPSA, was undue and unrea- it paid for cattle. Specifically, the Judi- efited IBP “by allowing greater flexibility
sonable because IBP refused to make the cial Officer found that IBP acquired the in scheduling delivery of cattle for slaugh-
same terms available to similarly situ- right of first refusal and the right to delay ter.” Id. at 29.
ated sellers of comparable livestock. Id. its pick up of the cattle by as many as
Cont. on p.7

T he ag iculture
ricultur pro
e provisions of the
1999 Omnibus Appr opriations
opriations Bill
By Karen R. Krub or guaranteed Farm Program loan.6 Un- 1996 Farm Bill were not changed by the
der the 1999 Omnibus Bill, the general 1999 Omnibus Bill. For example: A di-
On October 19, 1998, Congress passed rule is made much less restrictive for rect FSA loan still cannot be made to a
H.R. 4328, “Making Omnibus Consoli- new FSA guaranteed loans.7 The new farmer who has received any past debt
dated and Emergency Supplemental general rule for guaranteed loans is sum- forgiveness unless the farmer falls within
Appropriations for Fiscal Year 1999.” marized as follows: one of the exceptions discussed above.14
President Clinton signed this bill into A guaranteed loan cannot be made to a Farm borrowers are still limited to one
law on October 21, 1998.1 Regulations farmer who received debt forgiveness administrative “debt forgiveness” on a
implementing the changes have not yet on a Farm Program loan after April 4, direct FSA loan.15
been adopted by USDA, but the Secre- 1996, or to a farmer who received debt The prohibition on making or guaran-
tary of Agriculture is directed to issue the forgiveness on more than three occa- teeing loans to delinquent borrowers re-
necessary regulations “as soon as practi- sions before April 5, 1996. mains the same.16
cable.”2 In this article, the bill will be Thus, a farmer could have received
referred to as the “1999 Omnibus Bill.” debt forgiveness on as many as three Changes to emergency (EM) loan
This article will be presented in two occasions before April 5, 1996, and still security requirements
succeeding issues of the Agricultural Law be eligible for a new loan guaranteed by The 1999 Omnibus Bill makes some
Update. FSA.8 limited changes to the basic security re-
This article summarizes some of the • New emergency (EM) loans quirements for FSA emergency (EM) loan
major agricultural provisions of the bill— available where not more than one debt eligibility. The Secretary of Agriculture
including (1) Agricultural Credit; (2) Di- forgiveness before April 5, 1996 is allowed some further flexibility in
saster Relief; (3) Chapter 12 Bankruptcy; The 1999 Omnibus Bill provides that evaluating the collateral necessary to
(4) Conservation Programs; (5) Livestock an FSA emergency (EM) loan can be support the loan. Although the general
Pricing and Trade Provisions; (6) Dairy granted to a borrower who has received rule that there must be adequate secu-
Pricing; (7) Discrimination at USDA; (8) “not more than one debt forgiveness” rity for the loan remains the same, the
Crop Insurance Provisions; (9) Miscella- before April 5, 1996, and who has not amendment adds the following new lan-
neous Ag Provisions; and, (10) Tax—but received debt forgiveness after April 4, guage:17
readers should be aware that there are 1996.9 Thus, borrowers who received debt the Secretary shall not deny a loan... to
other agricultural provisions which are forgiveness only once prior to April 5, a borrower by reason of the fact that
not discussed here. Further, many non- 1996—and not at all after April 4, 1996— the borrower lacks a particular amount
agricultural sections of the new law may can still be considered for emergency of collateral for the loan if the Secre-
affect farmers and ranchers. (EM) loans.10 tary is reasonably certain that the bor-
• New operating credit avail- rower will be able to repay the loan.
Agricultural credit able if prior debt forgiveness came through This language affirms authority al-
The 1999 Omnibus Bill contains a num- write-down or a confirmed bankruptcy ready provided by the statute for the
ber of significant amendments to laws plan Secretary to take less than full security
controlling the Farm Service Agency Under the 1996 FAIR Act provisions, for emergency (EM) loans if there is rea-
(FSA) farm loan programs.3 there was only one exception to the ineli- sonable assurance of the borrower’s re-
gibility of borrowers with prior debt for- payment ability.18 However, by providing
Some loosening of eligibility restrictions giveness. This exception provided that for no additional limitations beyond the
where borrower had prior “debt borrowers who had received their debt reasonable certainty of repayment, the
forgiveness” forgiveness as a result of a write-down new language removes statutory author-
The 1999 Omnibus Bill makes some through the administrative debt restruc- ity for such restrictions imposed by FSA
changes to the restrictions on FSA loan turing process could still be considered regulations.
eligibility where the borrower has had for direct or guaranteed operating (OL) FSA has interpreted the amendment
debt forgiveness. The changes affect the loans to pay their annual expenses.11 to require that it drop its requirement
general eligibility rules for FSA guaran- The 1999 Omnibus Bill expands this that the portion of an emergency (EM)
teed loans and emergency (EM) loans. exception to allow new direct and guar- loan secured by repayment ability be
The changes also affect the special excep- anteed operating (OL) loans for borrow- repaid within three years.19 That change
tion for direct and guaranteed operating ers who are current on payments under a is certainly warranted by the new statu-
(OL) loans. confirmed bankruptcy reorganization tory language. However, because the new
plan under Chapters 11, 12, or 13 of the language makes no mention of limits on
• New guaranteed loans available if no Bankruptcy Code.12 Thus, farmers who the reason for the borrower’s lack of
more than three occasions of debt for- have received debt forgiveness as a result security, the agency’s continuing enforce-
giveness before April 4, 1996 of the administrative debt restructuring ment of a requirement that the borrower’s
Under provisions coming out of the process or who are current on payments lack of collateral be due to disaster-re-
1996 FAIR Act,4 any borrower who had under a confirmed bankruptcy reorgani- lated depreciation appears to be simi-
received “debt forgiveness”5 on a direct or zation plan can be considered for either a larly without statutory support.20
guaranteed USDA Farm Program loan direct or guaranteed operating (OL) loan The 1999 Omnibus Bill also allows the
was ineligible for any type of new direct for payment of their annual expenses.13 Secretary to deny or cancel an emergency
• Other debt forgiveness restric- (EM) loan if the borrower refuses to pledge
Karen R. Krub is an attorney with Farm- tions remain unchanged available collateral when requested by
ers’ Legal Action Group, Inc., St. Paul, The other general “debt forgiveness” the agency.21
MN. eligibility restrictions imposed by the

Elimination of multiple benefits 1999 Omnibus Bill also eliminates the flow margin requirements for FSA’s debt
restriction on CAT or NAP benefits and specific statutory authority for the agency restructuring and loan servicing process
emergency (EM) loans to conduct and contract for training pro- from 105 percent to 110 percent.39 Before
Under restrictions imposed by the 1996 grams for guaranteed loan borrowers.31 the 1999 Omnibus Bill was enacted, the
FAIR Act, farmers entitled to receive FSA will continue to consider a guaran- Secretary could assume that the bor-
crop insurance benefits under “cata- teed loan borrower’s training, education, rower would need up to 110 percent of
strophic risk protection” (CAT) coverage and experience as they are reflected in the amount estimated for payment of
who are also eligible for other USDA the projected production levels, income, farm operating expenses, debt service
assistance related to the crop loss have to and expenses in the farm business plan.32 obligations, and family living expenses.
choose which assistance to receive—they This provided a 10 percent cushion for
cannot receive both.22 Similarly, under Changes in guaranteed loan limits unanticipated or larger than expected
the Non-Insured Disaster Assistance Before the 1999 Omnibus Bill was en- expenses.40
Program (NAP), farmers who are eligible acted, federal statute provided that no The 1999 Omnibus Bill changes the
for NAP benefits as well as other USDA guaranteed farm ownership (FO) loan cash flow margin from 110 percent to 100
assistance related to the crop loss also could be made that would cause the un- percent.41
have to choose which benefit to receive.23 paid balance of the borrower’s total di-
FSA has treated emergency loans as loss rect and guaranteed farm ownership (FO) Disaster relief
benefits under these provisions, so in debt to exceed $300,000.33 Similarly, no The 1999 Omnibus Bill provides a sig-
case of crop disaster, farmers have had to guaranteed operating (OL) loan could be nificant amount of financial assistance
choose between receiving CAT or NAP made that would cause the unpaid bal- for agricultural producers affected by
benefits and obtaining an FSA emer- ance of the borrower’s total direct and natural disasters and low commodity
gency (EM) loan.24 guaranteed operating debt to exceed prices in 1998. Much of the disaster fund-
The 1999 Omnibus Bill changes the $400,000.34 ing is provided with the Secretary having
law governing CAT insurance coverage The 1999 Omnibus Bill combines these “broad authority” to create programs for
and NAP to specifically allow farmers to loan limit amounts, thus making the assistance. Distribution of other disaster
receive both the available benefits from total maximum unpaid indebtedness funding must comply with program terms
CAT or NAP and an FSA emergency (EM) $700,000 for guaranteed farm ownership set out by Congress.
loan for the same crop disaster.25 and/or operating debt in any combina-
tion.35 The amendment provides for an Crop loss assistance
New notice requirement for 5-year limit indexing of this maximum amount, al- In the 1999 Omnibus Bill Congress
on direct loan eligibility lowing it to increase to reflect inflation.36 appropriated more than $2.5 billion for
The 1996 Farm Bill imposed a “transi- In addition to combining the loan lim- crop loss assistance.
tion rule” on eligibility for direct FSA real its, however, the amendment language • Disaster assistance for 1998
estate loans. The rule puts limits on how also slightly altered how the loan limits crop year and multiyear losses
many years a borrower may obtain a are to be calculated.37 Under the 1999 The 1999 Omnibus Bill provides $1.5
direct farm ownership (FO) loan, thereby Omnibus Bill language, when calculat- billion in emergency assistance for pro-
requiring farmers to “graduate” from the ing limits for a new guaranteed real ducers who “incurred losses in the 1998
subsidized federal loan program to either estate loan you would start with $700,000 crop year due to disasters.”42 The 1999
private or guaranteed farm financing and subtract all outstanding real estate Omnibus Bill provides $875 million as
arrangements.26 loans—direct and guaranteed—and all assistance to producers who have in-
The 1999 Omnibus Bill does not change guaranteed operating loans. The farmer curred multiyear losses in the 1998 and
this restriction, but it requires the Secre- could have up to an additional $200,000 preceding crop years due to disasters.43
tary of Agriculture to notify borrowers in direct operating loans that would not Finally, the 1999 Omnibus Bill provides
that they will become ineligible for addi- be included in the limit. Similarly, for $200 million for livestock feed assistance
tional direct farm ownership (FO) loans new guaranteed operating loans you to producers affected by disasters during
due to this restriction at least 12 months would start with $700,000 and subtract calendar year 1998.44
before they become ineligible.27 all outstanding operating loans—direct • Secretary will determine how
and guaranteed—and all guaranteed real to distribute assistance
Changes in guaranteed loan eligibility estate loans. The farmer could have up to The Secretary is given “broad author-
requirements regarding training or an additional $200,000 in direct real es- ity to create and implement a crop loss
experience tate loans which would not be included in assistance program with the funds made
For almost 40 years, general eligibility the limit. available” by the 1999 Omnibus Bill.45
requirements for direct and guaranteed The Secretary may establish loss thresh-
farm program loans have provided that New notice requirement for shared olds, payment rates, and eligibility crite-
the borrower must “have either training appreciation mortgages ria.46 Nonetheless, Congress did set some
or farming experience that the Secretary The 1999 Omnibus Bill adds a new standards for the “fair and equitable”
determines is sufficient to assure reason- provision explicitly requiring the Secre- distribution of the funds.47
able prospects of success in the proposed tary of Agriculture to notify borrowers at •• Payment limitations not trig-
farming operations.”28 The Secretary is least 12 months before the end of the gered by many other USDA payments
authorized by federal statute to provide term of a Shared Appreciation Agree- The Secretary is authorized to estab-
needed training programs for borrow- ment.38 However, borrowers should be lish payment limitations for the disaster
ers.29 aware that this notice requirement does assistance provided by the 1999 Omni-
The 1999 Omnibus Bill exempts all not take effect until fiscal year 2000— bus Bill. However, in calculating the limi-
guaranteed loans—both for real estate which begins October 1, 1999. tations, the Secretary may not include
purchases and operating expenses—from payments received through other crop
FSA’s “training or experience” require- Elimination of cash flow margin in loss or market loss programs under the
ment.30 This requirement now applies debt restructuring calculation 1999 Omnibus Bill, Production Flexibil-
only to the direct loan programs. The The 1996 Farm Bill changed the cash Continued on page 6

1999 BILL/Cont. from page 4

ity Contract Payments, USDA market- benefits are to be proportional to PFC “(i) writing down or writing off a loan under section 2001
ing loans, NAP benefits, crop insurance payments made in 1998 and are to be ofthistitle;
indemnities for the 1998 crop year, or paid out “as soon as practicable.”58 The “(ii)compromising,adjusting,reducing,orcharging-offa
debt or claim under section 1981 of this title;
emergency (EM) loans made available conference report accompanying the law “(iii) paying a loss on a guaranteed loan under section
for the 1998 crop.48 makes it clear that although the funding 2005ofthistitle;or
•• Assistance available for 1998 is proportional to PFC payments, market “(iv) discharging a debt as a result of bankruptcy.
losses or multiyear losses—not both loss assistance payments are not to be “(B) Loan Restructuring.—The term ‘debt forgiveness’
Producers may receive assistance un- treated as PFC payments for purposes of doesnotincludeconsolidation,rescheduling,reamortization,
der the 1999 Omnibus Bill for 1998 crop payment limitations.59 The Committee 1996 FAIR Act, § 640(2) (codified at 7 U.S.C.
losses or multiyear losses, but not both.49 also directs the Secretary not to require § 1991(a)(12)).
•• Qualifying losses and crops producers to file new contracts or redes- Note that if the debt action did not result in a
Disaster assistance provided by the ignate shares in order to receive market loss to the Secretary it is not considered “debt forgiveness”
1999 Omnibus Bill may be used for crop loss payments.60 for these purposes.
losses that are due to quantity losses, • $200 million for dairy farmers 1996FAIRAct,§ 648(b)(codifiedat7U.S.C.§ 2008h(b)).
1999 Omnibus Bill, Div. A, Agriculture, Title VIII,§ 801
quality losses, or “severe economic losses Out of the funding set aside for market (to be codified as 7 U.S.C. § 2008h(b)(1)(B)).
due to damaging weather or related con- loss assistance under the 1999 Omnibus 8
See FSA Notice FLP-10, “Statutory Changes Because
dition.”50 Losses for all crops are eligible Bill, $200 million is specifically targeted of FY 1999 Appropriations Legislation” par. 2.E (Dec. 4,
for the disaster assistance provided by to dairy producers.61 The Secretary is to 1998) (set to expire Oct. 1, 1999).
the 1999 Omnibus Bill, including losses determine how this funding will be made 1999 Omnibus Bill, Div. A, Agriculture, Title VIII,§ 801
of “trees from which a crop is harvested.”51 available. (to be codified as 7 U.S.C. § 2008h(b)(2)(B)).
See FSA Notice FLP-10, “Statutory Changes Because
The specific determinations as to loss • Other disaster assistance pro- of FY 1999 Appropriations Legislation” par. 2.E (Dec. 4,
qualification are left to the Secretary. visions of the 1999 Omnibus Bill 1998) (set to expire Oct. 1, 1999).
• Crop insurance coverage and The 1999 Omnibus Bill provides an 11
1996 FAIR Act, § 648(b) (codified at 7 U.S.C.
crop loss assistance additional $3 million to the Dairy Pro- § 2008h(b)(2)).
The 1999 Omnibus Bill prohibits the duction Disaster Assistance Program.62 1999OmnibusBill,Div.A,Agriculture,TitleVIII,§ 801
(to be codified at 7 U.S.C. § 2008h(b)(2)(A)(ii)).
Secretary from “discriminat[ing] against This program provides assistance for 13
See FSA Notice FLP-10, “Statutory Changes Because
or penaliz[ing]” producers who have pur- dairy farmers who suffer production of FY 1999 Appropriations Legislation” par. 2.E (Dec. 4,
chased crop insurance.52 This generally losses due to natural disasters. 1998) (set to expire Oct. 1, 1999).
means that crop insurance coverage Due to “disastrously low prices,” the 1999OmnibusBill,Div.A,Agriculture,TitleVIII,§ 801
should not be taken into consideration 1999 Omnibus Bill authorizes the Secre- (to be codified at 7 U.S.C. § 2008h(b)(1)(A)).
when determining eligibility for program tary to make recourse loans to honey 7 U.S.C. § 2008h(c).
7 U.S.C. § 2008h(a); 31 U.S.C. § 3720B; 7 C.F.R.
benefits. producers for the 1998 crop.63 §§ 1941.12(a)(11), (b)(12), 1943.12(a)(11), (b)(12),
In order to receive disaster benefits The 1999 Omnibus Bill requires the 1980.175(b), 1980.180(b) (1998).
under the 1999 Omnibus Bill, producers Secretary to make NAP payments in 17
1999OmnibusBill,Div.A,Agriculture,TitleVIII,§ 802
who did not purchase crop insurance for fiscal year 1999 to raisin producers who (adding 7 U.S.C. § 1964(d)(2)(A)).
the 1998 crop year must sign a contract had catastrophic (CAT) insurance cover- See 7 U.S.C. § 1964(d).
FSA Notice FLP-10, “Statutory Changes Because of
agreeing to purchase crop insurance for age but who were unable to comply with FY 1999 Appropriations Legislation” par. 2.I (Dec. 4, 1998)
the 1999 and 2000 crop years.53 The con- the insurance policy requirements due to (set to expire Oct. 1, 1999).
tract will provide for liquidated dam- adverse weather conditions.64 20
See 7 C.F.R. § 1945.169(g)(1) (1998) for current
ages—as determined by the Secretary— The 1999 Omnibus Bill authorizes the requirements linking lack of sufficient collateral to disaster.
should the producer fail to purchase the Secretary to use funds for the Tree Assis- 1999OmnibusBill,Div.A,Agriculture,TitleVIII,§ 802
crop insurance required by the contract.54 tance Program to assist producers suf- (adding 7 U.S.C. § 1964(d)(2)(B)).
1996FAIRAct, §194(f)(codifiedat7U.S.C.§ 1508(n)).
A press announcement released Decem- fering losses due to disasters that oc- This restriction does not apply to additional crop insurance
ber 12, 1998, indicated USDA’s intent to curred from May 1, 1998, to August 1, coverage purchased by the farmer over the CAT level.
use some $400 million of the crop loss 1998, even if the harm caused did not 23
1996 FAIR Act, § 196(i)(3) (codified at 7 U.S.C.
funding to provide incentive payments become evident until after August 1, § 7333(i)(3)).
for farmers to purchase higher “buy up” 1998.65 Producers have until May 31, See, FSA Notice FC-207, “Multiple Benefits on Emer-
levels of crop insurance for their 1999 1999, to demonstrate loss due to fire gency (EM) Loans” (Aug. 19, 1998) (rescinded December 4,
crops.55 This use of the crop loss assis- blight infestation caused by an eligible 25
1999OmnibusBill,Div.A,Agriculture,TitleVIII,§ 803
tance appropriation does not appear to disaster. (amending 7 U.S.C. §§ 1508(n), 7333(i)(3)).
be authorized by the statutory language 26
1996FAIRAct,§601(codifiedat7U.S.C.§ 1922(b)(3)).
which refers only to “premium refunds The legislation is known as Public Law 105-277. See FSA Notice FLP-10, “Statutory Changes Because of FY
and other assistance ... for [the] 1998 Statute-at-Large designations have not yet been made. The 1999AppropriationsLegislation”par.2.D(Dec.4,1998)(set
text of the bill can be found in the Congressional Record for to expire Oct. 1, 1999) (rescinding FSA Notice FC-207,
insured crops, or [the] preceding (includ- October 19, 1998. “Multiple Benefits on Emergency (EM) Loans.”
ing 1998) insured crops.”56 2
1999 Omnibus Bill, Div. A, Agriculture, Title XI, § 1133. 27
1999OmnibusBill,Div.A,Agriculture,TitleVIII,§ 804
1999OmnibusBill,Div.A,Agriculture,TitleVIII,§§ 801- (adding 7 U.S.C. § 1922(b)(3(D)). See FSA Notice FLP-10,
Market loss assistance 808. These changes are temporarily being implemented by “Statutory Changes Because of FY 1999 Appropriations
The 1999 Omnibus Bill provides $3.057 the agency under FSA Notice FLP-10, “Statutory Changes Legislation” par. 2.C (Dec. 4, 1998) (set to expire Oct. 1,
Because of FY 1999 Appropriations Legislation” (Dec. 4, 1999).
billion in assistance as partial compen- 1998) (set to expire Oct. 1, 1999). 28
7U.S.C.§ 1922(a)(2)(applicabletodirectandguaran-
sation for loss of markets for 1998 com- 4
Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of teed operating loans); 7 U.S.C. § 1941(a)(2) (applicable to
modity crops.57 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-127, 100 Stat. 888-1197 (Apr. 4, direct and guaranteed real estate loans).
• $2.857 billion for production 1996) (“1996 FAIR Act”). 29
7 U.S.C. § 2006a.
flexibility contract holders “Debt forgiveness” is defined in the 1996 FAIR Act as 30
1999OmnibusBill,Div.A,Agriculture,TitleVIII,§ 805
The great majority of the market loss follows: (amending 7 U.S.C. §§ 1922(a)(2), 1941(a)(2)). See FSA
“(12) Debt Forgiveness. –“(A) In General. – Notice FLP-10, “Statutory Changes Because of FY 1999
assistance under the 1999 Omnibus Bill Except as provided in subparagraph (B), the term ‘debt AppropriationsLegislation”par.2.G,H(Dec.4,1998)(setto
is available to farm owners and produc- forgiveness’ means reducing or terminating a farmer pro- expire Oct. 1, 1999).
ers who are eligible for 1998 Production gram loan made or guaranteed under this title, in a manner 31
1999OmnibusBill,Div.A,Agriculture,TitleVIII,§ 805
Flexibility Contract (PFC) payments. The that results in a loss to the Secretary, through – (amending 7 U.S.C. § 2006a(a), (c)).

1999 BILL/Cont. from page 6 PSA/Cont. from page 3
FSA Notice FLP-10, “Statutory Changes Because of In addition, the Judicial Officer con- previous high bid, the Judicial Officer
FY 1999 Appropriations Legislation” par. 2.H (Dec. 4, 1998) cluded that GIPSA had failed to prove found that the right of first refusal “has
(set to expire Oct. 1, 1999) that IBP give the Beef Marketing Group the potential of discouraging others from
7 U.S.C. § 1925.
7 U.S.C. § 1943. an “undue” or “unreasonable” preference bidding on cattle and necessarily restricts
1999OmnibusBill,Div.A,Agriculture,TitleVIII,§ 806 as required under the Packers and Stock- competition because [IBP’s] right of first
(amending 7 U.S.C. §§ 1925, 1943). yards Act. As the Judicial Officer ac- refusal obviates [IBP’s] need to compete
1999OmnibusBill,Div.A,Agriculture,TitleVIII,§ 806 knowledged, the Packers and Stockyards for cattle place at Beef Marketing Group
(amending 7 U.S.C. §§ 1925, 1943). The inflation factor Act does not define “undue” and “unrea- feedlots in order to obtain those cattle.”
used will be the Prices Paid by Farmers Index compiled by
the National Agricultural Statistics Service of USDA. The sonable,” and those terms must be de- Id. at 74. Instead of competing, IBP
inflation increases will begin with fiscal year 2000, which fined according to the facts of each case. needed only to make a bid and then,
starts October 1, 1999. Considering the facts surrounding the without participating in any further bid-
1999OmnibusBill,Div.A,Agriculture,TitleVIII,§ 806 Beef Marketing Agreement and assum- ding, obtain the cattle by matching any
(amending 7 U.S.C. §§ 1925, 1943). See FSA Notice FLP- ing GIPSA had proven a $0.43 per hun- bid higher than IBP’s bid. The net effect,
10, “Statutory Changes Because of FY 1999 Appropriations dredweight price advantage, the Judicial or potential effect, was the suppression
Legislation” par. 2.F (Dec. 4, 1998) (set to expire Oct. 1,
1999). Officer noted that sum “represented only of the bidding process. The Judicial Of-
1999OmnibusBill,Div.A,Agriculture,TitleVIII,§ 807 about one-half of one percent of the pur- ficer concluded that this right violated
(adding 7 U.S.C. § 2001(e)(6)). See FSA Notice FLP-10, chase price of a typical animal.” Id. at 32. section 202 of the Act “because it has the
“Statutory Changes Because of FY 1999 Appropriations Also noting that “the cost of gain at effect or potential effect of reducing com-
Legislation” par. 2.B (Dec. 4, 1998) (set to expire Oct. 1, feedlots can vary as much as $15 to $30 petition.” Id. at 74-75 (citing Swift & Co.
1996 FAIR Act, § 645(l)(A) (codified at 7 U.S.C.
per hundredweight,” the Judicial Officer v. United States, 308 F.2d 849, 853 (7th
§ 2001(c)(3)(C)). observed that “it is questionable whether Cir. 1962); In re San Jose Valley Veal,
See the definition of a “feasible plan” at 7 C.F.R. a difference of $0.43 per hundredweight Inc., 34 Agric. Dec. 966, 985 (1975)).
§ 1951.906 (1998). would significantly affect either [pro- —Christopher R. Kelley, University of
1999OmnibusBill,Div.A,Agriculture,TitleVIII,§ 808 ducer] profits or placement of cattle by Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR.
(amending 7 U.S.C. § 2001(c)(3)(C)). See FSA Notice FLP- producers.” Id. at 33.
10, “Statutory Changes Because of FY 1999 Appropriations
Legislation” par. 2.A (Dec. 4, 1998) (set to expire Oct. 1, As to GIPSA’s allegation that IBP’s
1999). On December 4, 1998, FSA directed local offices to failure to offer the terms of the Beef NC/Cont. from page 1
immediately stop approving administrative write-downs Marketing Agreement to all feedlots in no reason to expect the trespasser’s pres-
based on cash flow margins exceeding 100 percent. Kansas violated the Packers and Stock- ence. Although not addressed in the
1999 Omnibus Bill, Div. A, Agriculture, Title XI, yards Act, the Judicial Officer first in- opinion, there is an implication that an
§ 1102(b). voked Armour & Co. v. United States, 402 expected trespasser might be subject to a
1999OmnibusBill,Div.A,Agriculture,TitleXI,§ 1102(c).
The Secretary is given the authority to define “multiyear F.2d 712, 720 (7th Cir. 1968), for the different standard.
losses” for the purposes of distributing these benefits, proposition that, under the Act, “price The Court noted that there are some
however the law specifically includes “diseases such as differences are not illegal, absent anti- arguments in favor of retaining the com-
scab” as eligible disasters. competitive intent....” Id. at 35. Noting mon-law rule. Juries are more likely to be
1999OmnibusBill,Div.A,Agriculture,TitleXI,§ 1103. that “courts have disagreed on whether composed of land entrants than landown-
Joint Statement of the Committee of Conference, H.R. there is a requirement that there be an ers; therefore, the common-law rule serves
4328, Congressional Record for Oct. 19, 1998, (hereinafter
“Conference Report”) at H11302. injury to competition, or whether injury as a check on the power of juries. The
1999 Omnibus Bill, Div. A, Agriculture, Title XI, to competitors is enough,” the Judicial Court noted that there is no empirical
§ 1101(b). Officer found “that harm to competition support for this view and that modern
1999 Omnibus Bill, Div. A, Agriculture, Title XI, can be proven by showing harm to com- jurors are more likely to be landowners
§ 1101(a). petitors ....” Id. at 36. In this regard, the than in the feudal period that gave rise to
1999 Omnibus Bill, Div. A, Agriculture, Title XI,
§ 1101(b)(3).
Judicial Officer concluded “that the Pack- the rule. The excessive cost of adequate
1999 Omnibus Bill, Div. A, Agriculture, Title XI, ers and Stockyards Act does not require insurance is another argument favoring
§ 1102(d). that the person harmed be a direct com- the common-law rule. The Court rejected
1999 Omnibus Bill, § 1102(e). Alfatoxin is specifically petitor of the person causing the harm, this reason too based upon its conclusion
mentioned as a possible source of quality loss. viz., it would be a violation of the Packers that the rule that it adopted does not
1999OmnibusBill,Div.A,Agriculture,TitleXI,§ 1102(f). and Stockyards Act if it were shown that require the landowner be an absolute in-
1999 Omnibus Bill, Div. A, Agriculture, Title XI,
§ 1102(g)(1). a packer caused harm, which the Pack- surer against all injuries that occur on the
1999 Omnibus Bill, Div. A, Agriculture, Title XI, ers and Stockyards Act is designed to land. The landowner is only required to
§ 1102(g)(3). prevent, to a feedlot or a livestock pro- avoid being negligent. The last argument
1999 Omnibus Bill, Div. A, Agriculture, Title XI, ducer.” Id. that the Court cited is that the trichotomy
§ 1102(g)(4). Here, however, the Judicial Officer promotes predictability in the law. The
“President Clinton Announces Emergency Aid to Farm- determined that GIPSA failed to prove Court also rejected this argument stating
ers,” White House Press Briefing (Dec. 12, 1998).
1999 Omnibus Bill, Div. A, Agriculture, Title XI, injury to either cattle producers or to that the negligence standard of reason-
§ 1102(g)(2). feedlots that were not members of the ableness provides greater predictability
1999OmnibusBill,Div.A,Agriculture,TitleXI,§ 1111. Beef Marketing Group. The Judicial Of- than the trichotomy. In support of its
1999 Omnibus Bill, Div. A, Agriculture, Title XI, ficer found that the evidence demon- position the Court cited numerous deci-
§ 1111(b), (c). strated that a feedlot’s membership in sions from other jurisdictions supporting
Conference Report at H11302.
Conference Report at H11302. the Beef Marketing Group “was not of the proposition that the trichotomy is a
1999 Omnibus Bill, Div. A, Agriculture, Title XI, particular concern to [producers] in mak- relic of a rural, feudal era. Of greater
§ 1111(d). ing cattle placement decisions,” and feed- importance to its conclusion the Court
1999 Omnibus Bill, Div. A, Agriculture, Title XIII. lots that were not members of the Group observed that the trichotomy has created
1999OmnibusBill,Div.A,Agriculture,TitleXI,§ 1122. continued to receive competitive prices. “a complex, confusing, and unpredictable
1999OmnibusBill,Div.A,Agriculture,TitleXI,§ 1123. Id. at 37-38. state of law.” Finally the Court con-
1999 Omnibus Bill, Div. A, Agriculture, Title XI, § 757.
The Judicial Officer took a different cluded that the rule, as applied, was
view of the right of first refusal, however. arbitrary, unjust and unfair.
Since the right of first refusal only re- —Theodore A. Feitshans, North
quired IBP to match, not exceed, the Carolina State Univ., Raleigh, NC.