Monthly Archives: October 2013

PACA Trust Litigation Alert!

PACA Trust Litigation Alert

PACA Trust Litigation Alert

On October 8, 2013, a civil action was filed in Florida against High Point Marketing of NJ, Inc. to collect approximately $30,000 in alleged PACA trust debt.

On October 10, 2013, a civil action was filed in New York against Isadore A. Rapasadi and Sons, Inc. to collect approximately $96,000 in alleged PACA trust debt.

On October 11, 2013, a civil action was filed in New Mexico against Duke City Produce, Inc. to collect approximately $129,000 in alleged PACA trust debt.

On October 14, 2013, a civil action was filed in Ohio against JAO Distributors, Inc. d/b/a Gentile Bros. Company to collect approximately $138,000 in alleged PACA trust debt.

On October 16, 2013, a civil action was filed in California against IBC Produce, Inc. to collect approximately $30,000 in alleged PACA trust debt.

On October 24, 2013, a civil action was filed in Florida against PNL Produce LLC d/b/a Watson’s Produce to collect approximately $9,000 in alleged PACA trust debt.

On October 25, 2013, a civil action was filed in Florida against both Sergio Felipe Produce Corp. and First Coast of Miami LLC to collect approximately $180,000 in alleged PACA trust debt.

On October 25, 2013, a civil action was filed in Pennsylvania against Andrew DePoala Mushrooms, Inc. to collect approximately $188,000 in alleged PACA trust debt.

Please check your A/R to see if these cases affect you.  If they do, please do not wait to assert your rights.

PACA Trust Litigation Alert!

PACA Trust Litigation Alert

     PACA Trust Litigation Alert

On September 24, 2013, a civil action was filed in New York against YCK LLC d/b/a Cross Island Super Foods to collect about $154,000.00 in alleged PACA trust debt.

On September 27, 2013, a civil action was filed in California against Hayes Produce Marketing LP to collect about $68,000.00 in alleged PACA trust debt.

On September 27, 2013, a civil action was filed in Virginia against Andrews Farming LLC to collect about $88,000.00 in alleged PACA trust debt.

Please check your A/R to see if theses cases affect you.  If they do, please do not wait to assert your rights.

 

 

Government Not Required to Prove Intent or Consciousness of Wrongdoing to Convict the Jensen Brothers

Jensen Farms PicAs the produce industry follows the fate of Eric and Ryan Jensen many articles and commentary have surfaced in support of the brothers Jensen.  However, these articles and commentary all focus around a significant misconception about the government’s burden  of proof.  Specifically, the general misconception is that the U.S. Attorney’s Office must prove or otherwise show intent on the part of the Jensen brothers to obtain a criminal conviction.  This is wrong!

The Federal Food Drug and Cosmetic Act (“FD&C Act”) protects the consuming public by allowing the government to regulate the conditions under which food and drugs are manufactured and distributed and it requires those responsible to comply with its provisions.  Under the FD&C Act, misdemeanor criminal responsibility does not require intent or consciousness of wrongdoing.  On the other hand, felony criminal responsibility requires a knowing violation with the specific intent to defraud or mislead.  The FD&C Act also states that a  corporation may commit an offense and all persons who aid and abet its commission are equally guilty.

The Jensen brothers are facing misdemeanor criminal charges, which still carry the threat of imprisonment and significant financial penalties.  Given the misdemeanor nature of the charges, the U.S. Attorney’s Office does not need to allege or prove any type of intent on the part of the Jensen brothers to obtain a criminal conviction.

The foregoing is but one example of why the Jensen brothers’ criminal case is alarming to the produce industry.  With that said, are there any real and meaningful defenses available to the Jensen brothers?  The answer is yes!