By Mark Curriden, JD Senior Writer for The Texas Lawbook (August 28) – More than 500 chicken growers in Arkansas, Louisiana and Texas claim that Pilgrim’s Pride Corporation (PPC) violated a 92-year-old federal law when it closed some of its chicken processing plants in 2009 in order to reduce chicken supplies in an effort to increase prices. Two years ago, a federal magistrate in Marshall agreed and awarded about one-third of them $25 million in damages, ruling that Pilgrim’s Pride illegally attempted to manipulate and control poultry prices by improperly shutting down some of its operations. But on Tuesday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed that decision, ruling that the poultry business founded in Pittsburgh, Texas in 1946 was within its legal rights to close the processing facilities in an effort to stem its losses and streamline operations. “PPC’s conduct was merely the legitimate response of a rational market participant to changes in a dynamic market,” Judge Eugene Davis and Judge Jerry Smith wrote in a unanimous opinion. “If a firm inadvertently over- produces a good and drives down prices, it does not break the law by cutting production so that prices may recover.” Judge Edith Jones participated in oral argument but did not participate in the decision. No explanation is given in the decision for her absence, which usually means a judge has discovered a conflict of interest and voluntarily recused themselves from the proceedings. Alex Brauer and Clayton Bailey of Dallas-based Bailey Brauer were the lead lawyers representing Pilgrim’s Pride. Other lawyers involved in the case include Dave Parham, Jennifer McCollum, Mike Pollard and Bill Roppolo of Baker McKenzie. Dallas plaintiff’s lawyer Mark Bordeur represents the chicken growers. Pilgrim’s Pride, which is