Ann: Feed Litigation Update, page-13

It's not the Spec. on the label that's important - it's the Specification that CSS would've (or should've!) included in their Purchase Agreement with Gibsons. As both Parties would've signed that Purchase Agreement, it's set in stone.

I.e. CSS would've said "we want these concentrations limits of chemical x, y, z, etc" - say between 1 and 3 mg of Iron.

If CSS specified minimum concentration levels for Taurine and Gibsons didn't supply a product that met those, one would think we have a strong case. I guess CSS would have to have independent lab data, showing that Gibson's product didn't contain enough Taurine (I assume we do?). Ideally we'd have lab reports from >1 batch, showing it was an ongoing supply issue.

If Taurine wasn't on the Purchase Spec. and Gibsons didn't supply it, it's a much weaker case. CSS would have to somehow prove that best Industry practice for fish feed, included Taurine. But there is no doubt a large grey area here, which crafty Lawyers can wiggle about in.