Termination

Franchisee Attorneys

In Anderson Tractor et al. v. Fiat et al (1996).; Brown’s Tractor et al. v. Ford New Holland et al. (1998); and C&B Equipment et al. v. Fiat et al. (1996, liability; 1997, damages), we recovered in excess of $4 million for Fiat dealers who were put out of business by a corporate merger when Ford New Holland bought the Fiat Tractor line and then discontinued it.

In Armstrong v. H&R Block & Co. (2003), we won a jury verdict for an H&R Block franchisee in excess of $5 million based on the franchisee’s termination.  Following that verdict, the franchisor settled with our 13 remaining clients in the total amount of $235 million for termination of their franchise rights.

In Rose Equipment v. Freightliner (1999), we recovered approximately $1.2 million for a Freightliner dealer in an arbitration.  We showed that the manufacturer’s direct sales to our client’s best customer violated the contract, the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and amounted to a de facto termination without good cause, even thought the dealer continued in business.

In Shakopee Chevrolet-Oldsmobile-Pontiac-Geo, Inc., v. General Motors Corp., (Minn. D. Ct. Civ. No. 02-4361), the court held that General Motors’ withdrawal of the Oldsmobile line may constitute a de facto termination in violation of the Minnesota Automobile Dealers Act, a breach of the parties’ agreement, and a violation of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

In Idaho Freightliner v. Freightliner (2000), we obtained a declaration that Freightliner did not have good cause to terminate this dealer.

In Polaris v. G.J.L., Inc. (1996), an arbitrator agreed with our position that, even though a written dealer agreement permitted the manufacturer to terminate the dealer without cause, the parties’ conduct had modified that agreement such that termination could take place only for good cause.  The arbitrator awarded our clients $170,000.

In Handlebar Cycle v. Polaris (1999), we successfully argued that two dealers’ contracts had been modified, as a result of a party’s course of dealing, to permit termination only for good cause, after which the arbitrator awarded $270,000 in damages.

In Maurice Bowlin v. Ford New Holland (1992), an arbitrator awarded $150,000 in damages for the dealer’s wrongful termination.

In Nixon-Egli Equipment Company v. American Crane Corporation (1993), an arbitrator awarded $443,000 in damages for the wrongful termination of this construction equipment dealer.

In Heck Implement v. Deere & Co. (1996), we obtained a court order restraining a manufacturer from terminating our client, an agricultural implement dealer.

In Nueces Power Equipment v. Volvo (2000), we successfully obtained a court injunction for a construction equipment dealer restraining the manufacturer’s termination.

In CTK, Inc. v. Mitsubishi Caterpillar Forklift America, Inc. (2001), we obtained a preliminary injunction restraining the termination of our client, a forklift dealer.

In Dady et al. v. Olympia Brewing Company and Theodore Hamm Brewing Company (1975), Michael Dady and his colleagues successfully sought and obtained an injunction in federal court in Minnesota, preventing the announced termination of several Hamm’s beer distributors (including his father!) who had received notices of termination in connection with Olympia’s acquisition of Hamm’s.  The injunction was affirmed on appeal to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.

In L.B. Smith, Inc. v. Cedarapids, Inc. & Terex Corporation, we obtained a court order enjoining a manufacturer of road equipment from terminating its dealer.

In Avoca Implement Co. v. Ford New Holland America, Bus. Franchise Guide (CCH) ¶ 10,311 (S.D. Iowa 1993), we obtained a jury award of $775,000 for a terminated dealer in a summary jury trial.

In Shaull Equip. & Supply Co. v. Ingersoll Rand, et al., Bus. Franchise Guide (CCH) ¶ 12,939 (M.D. Pa. Nov. 4, 2004), the court held that the parties’ written agreement, which permitted termination without good cause, was modified by the parties’ course of dealing, such that the manufacturer was required to have good cause to terminate the relationship.

In FMS v. Volvo Construction Equipment North America (Ill. Dist. Ct. 2006), a jury awarded $2.1 million to our client, a dealer in Samsung excavators.  The jury agreed with our argument that when Volvo bought Samsung and re-branded Samsung excavators as Volvo excavators, it terminated FMS as a dealer without good cause.

In Coelho & Bachetti, Inc. v. Ford New Holland, Inc., Bus. Franchise Guide (CCH) ¶ 10,923 (A.A.A. 1996), an arbitrator held that the manufacturer’s re-branding of a product line did not constitute a bona fide total product withdrawal, and awarded damages in the millions of dollars to our clients.