Tortious Interference with Contract-Price Manipulation

Listen to this article

7^th Circuit Court of Appeals

Case Name: Green Plains Trade Group, LLC v. Archer Daniels Midland Company

Case No.: 23-1185

Officials: Ripple, Jackson-Akiwumi, and Lee, Circuit Judges.

Focus: Tortious Interference with Contract-Price Manipulation

Green Plains Trade Group, LLC, appealied the district court’s dismissal of their tortious interference with contract claim against Archer Daniels Midland Company (ADM). Green Plains contended that ADM unlawfully manipulated ethanol prices, resulting in Green Plains receiving reduced payments for ethanol sold to third parties. The district court dismissed the case, asserting that Green Plains failed to identify the contracts ADM interfered with and didn’t demonstrate a contract breach. Green Plains argued that, under Nebraska law, tortious interference doesn’t always necessitate a breach and that ADM’s actions made its contract performance “more expensive or burdensome.”

The Seventh Circuit overturned the district court’s dismissal and remanded the case for further proceedings,  acknowledging the district court’s correct insistence on more than general contract allegations but noted a potential excess in specificity requirements. Additionally, it found an error in the district court’s failure to recognize section 766A of the Restatement (Second) of Torts as part of Nebraska’s law. This section allows a plaintiff to succeed in a tortious interference with contract claim even without an actual breach of the contract. The Court of Appeals emphasized that the district court must interpret the law as it believes the state’s highest court would, without hesitating to adopt a less restrictive approach if deemed appropriate by the state’s highest court.

Vacated and remanded

Decided 01/12/24

Full Text