BREAKING: David fires back in Epogee lawsuit: ‘Plaintiffs only have themselves to blame for not signing long-term supply agreements’

Accuseds in a high-profile antitrust lawsuit affirming David Protein got alt-fat manufacturer Epogee to “omit rivals and produce a fabricated syndicate” have actually countered in court documents submitted Thursday.

” What complainants are attempting to spruce up as an antitrust monopolization match is just an instance of poor service preparation– stopping working to safeguard long-term supply agreements for a component that they currently state is very important to their food service,” suggest offenders Linus Innovation (brand name: David Healthy protein), Peter Rahal (David cofounder), and Epogee (manufacturer of an unique fat replacer EPG).

The lawful disagreement started days after David announced the acquisition of Epogee when 3 food business that stated they might no more accessibility EPG wept nasty, and sued in New york city.

Complainants OWN Your Hunger, Brighten Foods, and Defiant Foods declared that David went against government antitrust regulations and New york city’s Donnelly Act by “coordinating the purchase of Epogee via deceptive and collusive conduct” and utilizing its “resulting control over EPG to omit rivals and produce a fabricated syndicate.”

According to the problem, “the complainants and various various other food producers spent numerous hundreds of bucks in R&D, making facilities, advertising and marketing projects, and item growth particularly customized to EPG [which looks and behaves like fat but contains a fraction of its calories], sensibly counting on Epogee’s motivation and guarantees of ongoing accessibility.

” These brand names essentially reorganized their whole service versions around EPG as their core affordable benefit and ‘secret sauce’ component, making EPG accessibility vital to their survival.”

‘ Complainants desire the court to save them from a dilemma they produced on their own’

In a 30-page memorandum submitted with the court Thursday, nonetheless, the offenders state they are “under no responsibility” to offer EPG to the complainants. “Epogee has 4 licenses that cover the procedure for making EPG. It is black letter regulation that license owners are not obliged to offer their item to 3rd parties or to accredit 3rd parties to exercise the license.”

At The Same Time, there is an “wealth” of fats and fat alternatives on the marketplace, include the offenders. “While they assert that they made their item solutions and making procedures around EPG as a main component, they did refrain what the majority of companies do, specifically when confronted with a single resource of supply for an apparently essential component or part– authorize an agreement.”

Prior to it acquired Epogee, keep in mind the offenders, David was a client of Epogee. “However, unlike complainants, David Healthy protein worked out a long-lasting supply contract to guarantee that EPG would certainly be offered to it for usage in its David healthy protein bars for several years to find. Various other Epogee consumers did the exact same point. These complainants did not.

” Currently they desire the Court to save them from a dilemma they produced on their own.”

‘ Complainants do not resemble showing illegal monopolization’

Dealing with the antitrust insurance claims, David Healthy protein and Epogee do not have syndicate power in an appropriate market, which is a vital demand for a monopolization case, states David, which keeps in mind that it is a little gamer in the healthy protein bar market, which Epogee is a little gamer in the fats/fat replacement market. On the other hand, the complainants, which do not make healthy protein bars, are not straight rivals.

In other words, they assert, the complainants’ concept “hinges on the tautology that the pertinent market need to be specified as the marketplace for the one component they wish to acquire– EPG– and which, because of its licenses, just Epogee makes.”

‘ Complainants just have themselves responsible for not authorizing lasting supply arrangements’

Epogee, which was not successful, has currently “quit making money-losing reduced quantity sales to tiny consumers to ensure that they can concentrate rather on consumers with regular, high-volume need, which will certainly permit them to spread out expenses throughout a bigger quantity,” include the offenders.

” It is not anticompetitive to transform one’s service approach in hopes of accomplishing productivity. Rather the contrary– it is pro-competitive for offenders to discover a means to run Epogee effectively and offer EPG not just to allow David Healthy protein to take on the bigger healthy protein bar business yet additionally to urge greater quantity sales of EPG to 3rd parties for various other foodstuff.”

Ultimately, the complainants have actually disappointed that they have actually experienced “permanent injury” declares the offenders, that state that a few of Epogee’s various other consumers have actually currently exchanged a few of the EPG in their items for various other fats or fat alternatives which complainants “just have themselves responsible for not authorizing lasting supply arrangements.”

They include: “Various other food companies that make use of EPG as a fat resource authorized lasting arrangements to safeguard their supply of EPG and will certainly remain to obtain that supply.”

‘ Methodical supply rejection and market control’

According to the complainants, Epogee initially began reporting lacks of EPG in March, yet informed consumers that products would certainly be offered in Might. Feedbacks to succeeding questions, they assert, were “unclear” till Might 29, when Epogee stated it would certainly no more approve brand-new orders and was unwinding accounts following its acquisition by David.

By successfully stringing them along for a number of months “throughout the hidden purchase duration” to ensure that they did not begin making alternate setups, David and Epogee “produced fabricated market problems beneficial to monopolization via methodical supply rejection and market control,” they affirm.

Because March 25, when EPG initially came to be not available, the complainants state they have actually experienced “considerable functional disturbances” and shed sales.

In other words, they assert, “The purchase and succeeding exclusionary conduct makes up a calculated bait-and-switch plan that methodically got rid of the extremely brand names whose considerable financial investments, advancements, and market growth initiatives had raised EPG’s business success and market price.

” By drawing the carpet from under spent rivals, offenders profited of others’ risk-taking and monetary dedications while all at once ruining business that had actually driven EPG’s market approval, developing a dishonest transfer of worth from the real pioneers to the tactical acquirer.”

Complainants: ‘David Healthy protein reveals negligence for the regulation’

An agent of the complainants informed AgFunderNews: “In 30 web pages having a number of valid errors, offenders try to skirt the admission their creator made to the media regarding “taking all the supply” and assert we made poor service choices.

” Epogee developed its whole service on assisting business owners be successful utilizing its “magic” (Peter Rahal’s very own word) component prior to David Healthy protein picked to take over that component to stop “imitators”. This is a negligence for the regulation that we will certainly resist in tomorrow’s hearing.”

David cofounder Peter Rahal did not react to an ask for remark.

What is EPG?

To make EPG (esterified propoxylated glycerol), which can be noted on food tags as ‘EPG (customized plant-based oil),’ Epogee divides plant-based oils such as canola right into glycerin and fats, inserts a food-grade web link, and reconnects them.

As EPG is immune to lipase, an enzyme that damages down fat in the body, minimal of its calories are launched. For context, 1g of fat consists of 9 calories, while 1g of EPG consists of simply 0.7 calories.

This verified very interesting David, which looks for to minimize the percent of power originating from fats and carbs in its protein-fueled bars.

Unlike Olestra, which had a reduced melting factor (and unpleasant adverse effects) or fat replacers made from sugars, gum tissues, starches or fibers, EPG features like fat since it’s made from fat.

* The situation is OWN Your Cravings, Brighten Foods, and Bold Foods vs Linus Innovation (which runs under the brand name David Healthy protein), Epogee, and Peter Rahal, submitted in the Southern Area of New York City on June 2, 2025. Instance: 1:25- cv-04544

The blog post BREAKING: David fires back in Epogee lawsuit: ‘Plaintiffs only have themselves to blame for not signing long-term supply agreements’ showed up initially on AgFunderNews.