D.F.A.

But in September, a judge allowed the case to move to trial, writing in her decision that the plaintiffs had presented evidence from which a “rational jury could conclude that the D.F.A. management favored growth of its commercial operations and empire building over the interests of its farmer-members.”

But in September, the judge overseeing the case allowed it to move to a trial, writing in her decision that the plaintiffs had presented evidence from which a “rational jury could conclude that the D.F.A. management favored growth of its commercial operations and empire building over the interests of its farmer-members.”

“They’re really focusing in on the impact on farmers and how this kind of transaction could greatly increase the capacity of D.F.A. to engage in anticompetitive practices,” Mr. Carstensen said.

And that line of inquiry could lead government investigators to “take a much more critical look at the way D.F.A. is using its existing market positions and think about whether there are workable remedies for that conduct.”

They singled out Charles Chamberlain, the executive director for D.F.A., saying that anyone who “purports to be a progressive on this issue would conclude precisely the opposite.”