• You will need to login or register before you can post a message. If you already have an Agriville account login by clicking the login icon on the top right corner of the page. If you are a new user you will need to Register.

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Lawsuit against Canadian Fert Companies for Price Fixing!

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Lawsuit against Canadian Fert Companies for Price Fixing!

    The following is from an article in the Star Tribune minneapolis paper today.
    Mosaic named in lawsuit alleging price-fixing
    The Plymouth firm was among fertilizer companies from Canada to Belarus accused in a federal suit of collusion in the potash market.
    Mosaic and seven other large fertilizer companies are accused of price-fixing and collusion in a federal lawsuit filed Thursday in Minneapolis.

    The suit, which seeks class-action status, accuses Plymouth-based Mosaic Co. of conspiring since 2004 with companies in Belarus, Canada and Russia to limit competition and drive up prices of potash, a mined mineral that is a key ingredient in fertilizer. Artificially high potash prices have hurt farmers, consumers and smaller fertilizer manufacturers worldwide, according to Richard Lockridge, a Minneapolis attorney who filed the lawsuit.

    Potash prices have more than quadrupled over the past year, transforming little-known fertilizer companies into Wall Street darlings. Mosaic's stock price has skyrocketed from $42.84 a share a year ago to $85.60, though shares are down sharply from their high of $163.25 in June. Many economists and agricultural analysts have blamed the rising prices on a global commodities boom and increased demand for biofuels, which has encouraged farmers to plant more crops such as corn that demand large amounts of fertilizer.

    The suit's plaintiff is Minn-Chem Inc., a Sanborn, Minn.-based maker of fertilizer for farmers and cooperatives that ceased manufacturing operations about a year ago in part because of high potash prices, Lockridge said.

    Minn-Chem and other members of the class are seeking unspecified damages and a court injunction that would prevent Mosaic and the other potash suppliers listed as defendants in the case from continuing the alleged price-fixing conspiracy, according to the complaint.

    Linda Thrasher, a spokeswoman for Mosaic -- the world's largest producer of potash and phosphate, another key fertilizer ingredient -- declined to comment Thursday, noting that the company's lawyers had not had a chance to thoroughly read the lawsuit.

    Minnetonka-based Cargill Inc. owns a 65 percent stake in Mosaic.
    Minn-Chem argues that the potash industry is "marked by a high degree of cooperation" among several large companies, which have overlapping ownership interests and cooperate through reciprocal visits to their production facilities. In addition to Mosaic, the lawsuit lists as defendants Agrium Inc. of Calgary, Alberta; Potash Corp. of Saskatchewan Inc.; JSC Uralkali of Moscow; RUE PA Belaruskali, of Soligorsk, Belarus; RUE PA Belarusian Potash Co. of Minsk, Belarus; JSC Silvinit of Solikamsk, Russia; and JSC International Potash Co. of Moscow.

    The lawsuit claims that just six potash producers in Canada and the former Soviet Union account for about 70 percent of the world's market. The lawsuit also alleges that Mosaic, as well as Potash Corp. and Agrium, are equal shareholders in Canpotex Ltd., which acts as a common sales, marketing and distribution company for potash producers throughout the world. In addition, long-standing joint ventures in the potash industry have given these companies opportunities to discuss pricing and other market information, the lawsuit alleges.

    No 'smoking gun'

    Lockridge admitted that he does not have a "smoking gun" that would prove price-fixing or collusion, though the companies "did engage in an unusually and extensive amount of cooperative activities that would suggest an implicit gentleman's agreement not to compete on the basis of price."

    This is not the first time that potash producers have been accused of violating antitrust laws.

    Mosaic, along with other Canadian and U.S. potash producers, were accused of maintaining a price-fixing conspiracy in a number of class-action lawsuits filed in 1993. Mosaic, then known as IMC Fertilizer Group, said the claims were without merit and the lawsuits were dismissed.

    Boy makes you wounder doesnt it.

    #2
    Not really.

    Few sellers=high price
    Lots of sellers=low price


    But not many ever did well at monopoly on this site.

    Comment


      #3
      Most people here still cling to the more sellers higher price theory!!

      Comment


        #4
        We've had a monopoly seller for wheat and barley in Western Canada.

        It's caleed the CWB.


        Sooooo, how's the farm price been over the past 70 years? Raking it in?



        Right.

        Parsley

        Comment


          #5
          the cwb was more effective when canada was more of a presence in wheat trade. now it's competing against lower cost producers and so i guess you are too. the cwb should go for a variety of reasons including property rights but i don't think it will make a whole big difference as far as canadian grain farm profitability is concerned. farmers should have choice but it won't change the overall structure of the marketplace. few buyers, many sellers from the farmgate.

          Comment


            #6
            The CWB isn't a monopoly seller.

            What happens to price when there is one buyer (CWB), and many sellers (designated area farmers)?

            Comment


              #7
              "The CWB isn't a monopoly seller."


              Tell me what you mean by that FarmRanger.I would agree AND disagree.

              Parsley

              Comment


                #8
                Agstar. You and CWB supporters need to think this through. The CWB has maybe 15% of the wheat market and this is shrinking every year. What makes you think that this is a monopoly and that they can leverage a higher price. In fact it works the opposite like stated before. ONE buyer (CWB)and many sellers ( thats you ). Whats makes you think that having 15% of the market allows you to demand a higher price. You can not forward price ( US farmers prepriced durum for $13 act of God clause this year $11 to $12 wheat ) This is far more important for risk management then anything. I can not imagine how bad CWB supporters must have their heads in the sand to think that the CWB, in the big picture, is better for their farms. If they were truly honest with themselves they would realize that even on their farms the CWB grains has a dwindling share of their crops over the last 10 to 20 years.

                Comment


                  #9
                  Monopoly indicates market dominance.
                  The CWB does not have market dominance in any market.

                  Monopolies extract higher prices.
                  Last year the CWB's average sales on spring wheat were about $2.72/bu <b>BELOW</b> the crop year average selling price of the CWB. The durum PRO is about $6.10/bu <b>BELOW</b> the crop year average.

                  Based on last year's pool size as reported by the CWB, this means that the CWB made <b>$1.2 BILLION</b> less than if they just got average prices.

                  <b>$1.2 BILLION BELOW AVERAGE</b>

                  If the CWB has monopoly powers, why doesn't it get better returns?


                  Burbert, Cottonpicken, Wilagro, Agstar, Evader, Grainbeetle, and all other CWB-supporters and monopoly-believers:

                  That's not a rhetorical question. I really am interested in your answers. Please tell me what the value of the single desk (monopoly) has been.

                  Comment


                    #10
                    We are sort of argueing two different things.

                    Comment


                      #11
                      Chaff you can argue incompitence/free market/freedom/seperation of government and market etc etc.

                      But you can NOT say controlling 15% of something doesnt give you certain leverage.

                      Do you need an analogy?


                      Saudia arabia pumps 9.45 million barrels per day into a market of 86 million barrels.

                      They cant influence price?

                      Comment


                        #12
                        I would love to see people move past the obivous.

                        Start asking why.

                        Whats the motive?
                        Who's benefiting?
                        Why would they do this?

                        A few jobs in winterpeg is not an answer.
                        Because their lazy/dumb is not an answer.

                        A few billion dollars worth of food demands more than trivial,off the cuff,ignorant remarks.

                        Comment


                          #13
                          And thank you for pooling me into pro cwb.

                          Comment


                            #14
                            You question your “pooling” among CWB supporters, yet you post:

                            Few sellers=high price
                            Lots of sellers=low price
                            But not many ever did well at monopoly on this site.

                            I know you’re talking about fertilizer but your reference in the last line is all about the CWB debate.

                            You say we should move on beyond the obvious but you don’t. Please re-read my question and then take a stab at answering it.

                            <b>If the CWB has monopoly powers, why doesn't it get better returns?</b>

                            Forget the argument of how much of the market the CWB “controls”. They may be dominant in a particular type/class of wheat (the CWB’s argument) but once you factor in substitutions, individual “dominance” wanes.

                            The CWB thought they could expand malt barley sales into China but guess what? The Chinese will make malt out of gravel if they have to. Pay a premium to Canada? You’re kidding, right?

                            Take a look at our malt barley exports to China over the last few years. Lower each year.

                            The CWB has a 60% share of the export durum market; why doesn’t it just charge $1,500/tonne and call it a day?

                            The CWB’s idea of market power in durum is to hold off selling, thinking this will push prices higher. All it does is allows other exporters and sellers to sell everything they want to and Canadian farmers carry the ending stocks for just about the whole globe.

                            So, assuming the CWB’s theory is right and it’s successful, not only do other countries get higher prices, they also sell out. You get to store durum.

                            You want to start asking why – is that an admission that the CWB system isn’t working so lets find out why?

                            My view of things:

                            CWB staff is doing the best they can, with the tools and techniques available to them.

                            CWB senior management does not understand the business they’re in.

                            CWB BODs have blinders on; it’s a religion to them. Some would rather kill the CWB than see it succeed in a dual market.

                            Many, many decisions made by the CWB, both policy and operational, are made with the sole purpose of protecting the CWB itself. Sorry, but much of the time, it has absolutely nothing to do with pool returns for farmers. Nothing.

                            The liberals know they’ve taken the wrong side of this argument but have made it into a political argument. How’s it feel to be a political pawn?

                            Now Cottonpicken:

                            Please answer my first question and yours too. Where the value? And if its not there, why?

                            Comment


                              #15
                              Monopsony or Monopoly
                              check it out in your bussiness dictionarys and you will realize which cwb actually is.

                              Comment

                              • Reply to this Thread
                              • Return to Topic List
                              Working...