Davis Cattle Co., Inc. v. Great Western Sugar Company
| Decision Date | 06 May 1975 |
| Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 74-W-1090. |
| Citation | 393 F. Supp. 1165 |
| Parties | DAVIS CATTLE CO., INC., Plaintiff, v. The GREAT WESTERN SUGAR COMPANY and Great Western United Corporation, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Colorado |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Williams, Connolly & Califano by Paul R. Connolly, Jeremiah C. Collins, Thomas E. Patton and John W. Vardaman, Jr., Washington, D. C., Houtchens & Houtchens by Jerry C. Daniel, Greeley, Colo., for plaintiff.
Ireland, Stapleton, Pryor & Holmes by Hardin Holmes and Kenneth L. Starr, Denver, Colo., Shank, Irwin, Conant, Williamson & Grevelle by Ivan Irwin, Jr., Dallas, Tex., for defendants.
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Plaintiff's amended complaint pleads two counts. The theory of Count Two is that the sugarbeet growers' contracts which are the subject of this litigation are securities, and that the Court has jurisdiction of Count Two under 15 U. S.C. § 78aa. On January 16, 1975, applying as the law of this Circuit Mr. Steak, Inc. v. River City Steak, Inc., D. C., 324 F.Supp. 640, aff'd 10 Cir., 460 F.2d 666, I held that the growers' contracts are not securities, and Count Two was dismissed. This effectively dismissed Great Western United Corporation from the case because Count One claims only against The Great Western Sugar Company.
Plaintiff is a Kansas Corporation having its principal place of business in Kansas. Defendant Sugar Company is a wholly owned subsidiary of Great Western United, and neither is a citizen of Kansas nor does either maintain a principal place of business in Kansas. Moreover, diversity and jurisdictional amount are admitted as to the named plaintiff. Accordingly, jurisdiction of Count One under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 exists. This count asserts a claimed breach of the 1974 sugarbeet grower's contract between plaintiff and defendant Sugar Company, and, more particularly, a claimed breach of its provisions having to do with the initial payment to be made by the Sugar Company to the growers. The specific provisions of the contract giving rise to this controversy will be discussed in detail later in these findings.
Plaintiff sues for itself and on behalf of all other growers similarly situated, and the complaint asks that the case be certified and treated as a class action. On January 16, 1975, and by order formalized on Feburary 4, 1975, I found that the tests and requirements of Rule 23 for class action treatment were met, and it was ordered that the case be maintained as a class action under the provisions of Rule 23(b)(3). The class was defined as:
"All persons, including individuals, partnerships and corporations, who contracted to grow, grew and delivered prior to November 5, 1974 under a 1974 Sugarbeet Contract with Great Western Sugar Company 12 or more acres of sugarbeets."
The 12-acre limitation was fixed to meet the jurisdictional amount requirement spelled out in Zahn v. International Paper Co. (1973) 414 U.S. 291, 94 S.Ct. 505, 38 L.Ed.2d 511, and, based on the record made, each grower who, prior to November 5, 1974, grew and delivered to the Sugar Company more than 12 acres of sugarbeets under a 1974 sugarbeet contract has more than $10,000.00 in controversy, exclusive of interest and costs. In accordance with the requirements of Rule 23(c) notice was sent to the class members in the approximate number of 4,000, and approximately 900 class members requested that they be excluded from the class. Records of these exclusion requests have been maintained by the Clerk of the Court and copies have been supplied to counsel for the parties.
Paragraphs 5 and 6 of the sugarbeet growers' contracts are the paragraphs important to this case, and they provide:
Then, after providing for certain adjustments, we reach the nub of the case which is paragraph 6 of the contract. That paragraph says:
It is agreed that the 1974 sugarbeet crop had an average sugar content of approximately 17.25% sugar, and the class members received as an initial payment for their 1974 crop a total of $28.58 per ton, $2.33 of which included a payment made by the United States government, the net result of which is, of course, that the Sugar Company itself paid as its initial payment to the growers $26.25 per ton.
Although the contract's schedule does not list a 17.25% sugar content and does not contemplate an "Average Net Return per 100 Pounds of Sugar" of more than $15.00, extrapolation develops per ton payments for beets having a 17.25% sugar content for the following hypothetical "Average Net Returns per 100 Pounds of Sugar":
Per Per ton
100 lbs. payments
$15.00 $ 27.407
$20.00 $ 36.518
$30.00 $ 54.840
$40.00 $ 72.962
$50.00 $ 91.184
$60.00 $109.332
The case has to do with whether the $26.25 per ton initial payment conformed to Great Western's obligations under the contract, taking into account past history of operations under earlier similar contracts. That being true, it is appropriate to supply a bit of company history and a summary of past grower-company relationships.
Great Western Sugar Company is one of Colorado's oldest and most respected companies, but in recent years it has been the target of successful and unsuccessful takeover attempts. After many years as one of the areas two largest sugar refiners, it found itself under new management and it became a part of a conglomerate owned by Great Western United. The conglomerate consisted of the unlikely combination of Great Western Cities a land development company Shakey's a chain of franchised pizza pie parlors and Great Western Sugar Co. Management changed from time to time, and with every change in management, there was an increase in grower concern as to company policies and stability. The sugar business being what it is, in the majority of the growing areas, Great Western was the only purchaser of the growers' beets, and just as Great Western is dependent upon the growers' acreage, the growers must rely on Great Western. The contract spells out that "The grower is an independent contractor," but many of the elements of joint venture are present in the overall picture of company-grower relationships. In fact, Charles R. Haning, a former officer of Great Western, testified that "we are semi-partners with the Growers."
For many years, Frank A. Kemp headed the company, and during his tenure relationships were harmonious and the growers trusted him implicitly. He typically had the company pay 80%-85% of the anticipated net returns for the sugar grown during a particular crop year, arriving at the amount of the payment per ton of beets through the use of the schedule contained in the contract. However, the passage of time led to deaths and retirements, takeover attempts, turmoil within the company, diversification of company efforts into unrelated fields, and a loss of grower confidence which had prevailed over the years.
Robert R. Owen became president of Great Western Sugar Company in 1968, and he served as such until 1971. He is presently the president of Great Western Producers Cooperative which just last year itself unsuccessfully attempted to acquire Great Western Sugar Company. During Owen's tenure as Great Western's president, he orally agreed to pay the growers 85% of the anticipated net returns. Grower-company realtionships were fairly good during Mr. Owen's term, but they did not always equal those which existed under Mr. Kemp.
George Wilber succeeded Mr. Owen in 1971,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
IN RE AIR CRASH DISASTER AT STAPLETON INTERN.
...prejudgment interest. Prospero Assoc. v. Redactron Corp., 682 P.2d 1193, 1196 (Colo.App.1983); see also Davis Cattle Co. v. Great Western Sugar Co., 393 F.Supp. 1165, 1182 (D.Colo.1975), aff'd, 544 F.2d 436 (10th Cir.1976), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 1094, 97 S.Ct. 1109, 51 L.Ed.2d 541 (1977); ......
-
Lowell Staats Min. Co., Inc. v. Pioneer Uravan, Inc.
...rate in the absence of specific proof of the benefit derived by the defendant from its breach. Davis Cattle Co., Inc. v. Great Western Sugar Co., 393 F.Supp. 1165, 1194 (D.Colo.1975), aff'd, 544 F.2d 436 (10th Cir.1976), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 1094, 97 S.Ct. 1109, 51 L.Ed.2d 541 (1977). In ......
-
Allstate Ins. Co. v. Starke
...interest, or interest as damages, has been allowed in Colorado for well over one hundred years. 3 Davis Cattle Co., Inc. v. Great W. Sugar Co., 393 F.Supp. 1165, 1188 (D.Colo.1975), aff'd, 544 F.2d 436 (10th Cir.1976), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 1094, 97 S.Ct. 1109, 51 L.Ed.2d 541 (1977). The t......
-
Mortgage Finance, Inc. v. Podleski
...contract and specifically rejected the court of appeals' reasoning in Podleski v. Mortgage Finance, Inc.); Davis Cattle Co. v. Great Western Sugar Co., 393 F.Supp. 1165 (D.Colo.1975) (applying Colorado law), aff'd, 544 F.2d 436 (10th Cir.1976), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 1094, 97 S.Ct. 1109, 51......
-
Collecting Pre- and Post-judgment Interest in Colorado: a Primer
...French and Latin roots and means delay. For a brief discussion of the early case law on this subject, see, note 1, supra at 1605. 9. 393 F.Supp. 1165 (D.Colo. 1975). 10. Id. at 1191. 11. For convenience, the authors occasionally use the terms "he" or "his" in situations where either gender ......
-
Colorado's Prejudgment Interest Statute: Potential for Market Rate Interest
...term "moratory interest," but did award interest as damages based upon the benefit to the defendant from the wrongful withholding. 9. 393 F.Supp. 1165 (D. Colo. 1975), aff'd, 544 F.2d 436 (10th Cir. 1976), cert, denied, 429 U.S. 1094 (1977). 10. C.R.S. 1973, § 5-12-102. Colorado courts had ......
-
Rates of Interest on State and Federal Court Judgments: an Update
...34. For a comprehensive discussion of Colorado law regarding moratory interest, see, Davis Cattle Co., Inc. v. Great Western Sugar Co., 393 F.Supp. 1165, 1189-1195 (D. Colo. 1975), aff'd 544 F.2d 436 (10th Cir. 1976), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 1094 (1977). The following Colorado cases were rel......
-
Let the Builder-vendor Beware: Defenses and Damages in Home Builder Litigation-part Ii
...33. Acme Delivery Service, Inc. v. Samsonite Corp., 663 P.2d 621, 626 (Colo. 1983); Davis Cattle Co. v. Great Western Sugar Co., 393 F.Supp. 1165 (D.Colo. 1975). 34. E.B. Jones Construction Co. v. City and County of Denver, 717 P.2d 1009 (Colo.App. 1986) (recovery of moratory interest was a......