- 4 -
testimony tended to show that IBP was involved in monopolistic and
questionable business practices.
IBP was invited to send a representative to the subcommittee's hearing,
but declined to do so. On August 1, 1979, IBP, by its president Robert
Peterson, responded to the subcommittee by a 31-page letter (the Peterson
letter). The Peterson letter was in answer to testimony given to the
subcommittee about IBP and its business practices. Approximately 14 pages of
the Peterson letter addressed the testimony of petitioner. The Peterson
letter not only addressed the business practices with respect to which
petitioner testified, but also included statements which attacked petitioner's
character and veracity. Among other things, the Peterson letter alleged that
petitioner was "a disgruntled ex-IBP employee" who had "stolen IBP documents",
and that petitioner's testimony was "absolutely false" and "constituted
perjury", and was "a malicious attempt to blacken IBP's name and belatedly
manufacture a defense to IBP's breach-of-fiduciary duty suit" (i.e., the IBP
suit). The Peterson letter in essence called petitioner a liar and a thief.
IBP sent a copy of the Peterson letter to each member of the subcommittee and
requested that it be made a part of the public record. At the time petitioner
testified before the subcommittee, he was employed as vice president of
Dubuque Packing Co. (Dubuque Packing). Petitioner's employment at Dubuque
Packing was abruptly terminated on July 30, 1979. The contents of the
Peterson letter had been widely reported by the media.
On October 4, 1979, petitioner filed a suit against IBP in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Iowa (Bagley v. Iowa Beef
Processors, Inc., Civil No. 79-4087) (the Bagley suit). In the complaint,
petitioner asserted five claims against IBP. The five claims asserted were:
(1) IBP's suit against petitioner constituted an abuse of process; (2) IBP
tortiously interfered with an existing contract of employment by causing
Dubuque Packing to terminate petitioner's employment; (3) IBP tortiously
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011