Green Plains Trade Group LLC v. Archer Daniels Midland Company
2:20-cv-02332
C.D. Ill.Aug 16, 2021Background
- Plaintiffs (ethanol producers) sued ADM in a putative class action alleging ADM manipulated the Argo Terminal MOC trades to depress the Platts/OPIS Chicago ethanol benchmark, harming sellers of physical ethanol.
- Plaintiffs allege ADM took large short positions in Chicago ethanol derivatives then drove down physical Argo prices during the Market-on-Close (MOC) window (Nov 2017 onward) by uneconomic and aggressive selling.
- Market participants complained; Platts convened a meeting on July 19, 2018 where ADM’s MOC selling was discussed as potential manipulation.
- Plaintiffs brought Count I under the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA) and Count II for tortious interference with contracts (Nebraska law).
- ADM moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6); the court accepted complaint facts as true but resolved legal issues on the pleadings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing under §25(a) (CEA private right) | Sellers of physical ethanol injured by a manipulated benchmark may sue under §25 | §25 private right is limited to persons who purchased/sold futures or options; physical commodity buyers/sellers lack standing | Plaintiffs lack standing; §25 requires purchase/sale of futures; Count I dismissed with prejudice |
| §6b(a) fraud in connection with futures contracts (pleading) | ADM’s manipulative conduct suffices to state a §6b(a) claim | Complaint fails to allege any misrepresentation made in connection with a futures contract or plead fraud with particularity | Plaintiffs did not plead misrepresentation/connection and conceded the point; §6b(a) claim dismissed |
| §6c(a) (fictitious sales / false price reporting) | Alleged conduct falls within §6c(a) prohibitions | §6c(a) does not provide a private cause of action | Court: §6c(a) cannot sustain a private claim; dismissed |
| Statute of limitations (2‑year discovery rule) | Injuries were not discovered until the July 2018 Platts meeting; filing July 14, 2020 is timely | Injuries began Nov 2017, so the suit is time‑barred | Court found discovery accrual ambiguous on the complaint’s face and did not dismiss on SOL at Rule 12(b)(6) stage |
| Tortious interference (Nebraska law) & supplemental jurisdiction | State‑law tort claim available against a market participant | CEA preempts state claims or court should decline jurisdiction after federal claims dismissed | Court declined supplemental jurisdiction and dismissed the tort claim without prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading standard: factual allegations must state a plausible claim)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility pleading standard)
- Commodity Futures Trading Comm’n v. Zelener, 373 F.3d 861 (7th Cir. 2004) (§25 standing requires futures trading)
- Nagel v. ADM Investor Servs., Inc., 217 F.3d 436 (7th Cir. 2000) (distinguishing physical commodity purchasers from futures traders for CEA standing)
- In re Dairy Farmers of Am., Inc., Cheese Antitrust Litig., 60 F. Supp. 3d 914 (N.D. Ill. 2014) (physical commodity purchasers lack CEA §25 standing)
- Ploss v. Kraft Foods Group, Inc., 197 F. Supp. 3d 1037 (N.D. Ill. 2016) (§6c(a) cannot sustain a private cause of action)
- U.S. v. Norwood, 602 F.3d 830 (7th Cir. 2010) (discovery accrual rule under CEA: plaintiff learns injury and perpetrator)
- Levy v. BASF Metals Ltd., 917 F.3d 106 (2d Cir. 2019) (limitations accrual: discovery of injury, not discovery of all claim elements, starts the clock)
- American Agric. Movement, Inc. v. Bd. of Trade of City of Chicago, 977 F.2d 1147 (7th Cir. 1992) (CEA preemption is limited; state law claims that only affect private relationships are not necessarily preempted)
- Bonte v. U.S. Bank, N.A., 624 F.3d 461 (7th Cir. 2010) (failure to respond to an argument may be treated as concession)