Appeals Court Rules in Favor of Michael Foods in Pricing Case

MINNETONKA, Minn. (January 18, 2010 - PRNewswire)—A federal appeals court directed that judgment be entered in favor of Michael Foods, Inc. in a long-running pricing case brought under the Robinson-Patman Act.

The case, Feesers, Inc. v. Michael Foods, Inc. and Sodexo, Inc., was filed in 2004. In the suit, Feesers, a regional food distributor based in Pennsylvania, claimed that it competes with Sodexo, Inc., a multinational food service management company, and that Michael Foods was required to sell its products to both companies at the same price. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals rejected Feesers' claim, holding that Feesers and Sodexo are not competing purchasers.

"We are obviously pleased with the Third Circuit's decision," said James E. Dwyer, Jr., President and Chief Executive Officer of Michael Foods, Inc.

In the precedential decision, the Third Circuit said Feesers and Sodexo compete only when a prospective customer is deciding between self-operation and outsourcing of its food service operations. Because sales of Michael Foods products occur after the customer has made that decision, the Third Circuit found no competition between Feesers and Sodexo in sales of Michael Foods products. With no competition, the Court said, there could be no competitive injury to Feesers.

The Third Circuit's unanimous opinion reverses an April, 2009 decision by the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania finding that Michael Foods and Sodexo violated the Robinson-Patman Act. It also reverses a subsequent District Court Order requiring Michael Foods to sell products to Feesers and Sodexo at the same price.

Michael Foods, Inc., headquartered in Minnetonka, Minnesota, produces and distributes food products for the food service, retail and food-ingredient markets. Its principal products are specialty egg products, refrigerated potato products, cheese and other dairy products.

Michael Foods was represented by Roy T. Englert, Jr. of Robbins, Russell, Englert, Orseck & Untereiner in Washington, D.C., and by J. Scott Ballenger, Maureen E. Mahoney, Jennifer L. Giordano and Margaret M. Zwisler of Latham & Watkins, LLP in Washington, D.C.

SOURCE Michael Foods, Inc.

Members help make our journalism possible. Become a Restaurant Business member today and unlock exclusive benefits, including unlimited access to all of our content. Sign up here.

Multimedia

Exclusive Content

Operations

Hitting resistance elsewhere, ghost kitchens and virtual concepts find a happy home in family dining

Reality Check: Old-guard chains are finding the alternative operations to be persistently effective side hustles.

Financing

The Tijuana Flats bankruptcy highlights the dangers of menu miscues

The Bottom Line: The fast-casual chain’s problems following new menu debuts in 2021 and 2022 show that adding new items isn’t always the right idea.

Financing

Malls are quietly making a comeback

Once left for dead as shoppers moved online and then the pandemic hit, malls are regaining lost traffic. And that has been a boon for restaurant chains like Auntie Anne's, Cinnabon and Chick-fil-A.

Trending

More from our partners