Go Back   DealershipForum.com > Forum Sponsors > DealerLaw.com

Notices

DealerLaw.com DealerLaw.com is an official sponsor of DealershipForum.com

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-11-2015, 06:34 AM   #106
steve_biegler
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,497
Default

Unless I missed it Automotive News hasn't even made note of the win for the dealers. Not surprising but really sad. Hope I just missed it.
steve_biegler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-11-2015, 10:15 AM   #107
XDCX
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 14,869
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by steve_biegler View Post
Unless I missed it Automotive News hasn't even made note of the win for the dealers. Not surprising but really sad. Hope I just missed it.
I haven't been following Automotive News too closely lately but I wouldn't be surprised if they opted not to include any coverage of the win for the OLDCO dealers. Then again, perhaps they're waiting for something official from the court.

I do recall back in the days when Dealer Standards was a major thorn in the sides of the CJDR dealers a reporter from AN told me his editor didn't want to see any more stories on the topic - apparently the editor thought they had already sufficiently covered the story.
XDCX is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-08-2015, 11:47 AM   #108
steve_biegler
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,497
Default

Has anyone heard any more about this?
steve_biegler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-09-2015, 01:38 PM   #109
srt
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 181
Default

Still waiting for the Judge.
srt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-13-2015, 11:08 AM   #110
flstsphil
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 62
Default raisin case

A case was decided last month in the Court of Federal Claims called Horne v. Department of Agriculture. The case dealt with the government taking raisins from farmers and not paying for them. The case was decided for the farmer and against the government.

The court asked that our lawyers and the government lawyers comment on the ruling by July 6. The government asked for and received a two week extension.

As usual, another delay.
flstsphil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-13-2015, 12:09 PM   #111
steve_biegler
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,497
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by flstsphil View Post
A case was decided last month in the Court of Federal Claims called Horne v. Department of Agriculture. The case dealt with the government taking raisins from farmers and not paying for them. The case was decided for the farmer and against the government.

The court asked that our lawyers and the government lawyers comment on the ruling by July 6. The government asked for and received a two week extension.

As usual, another delay.
Why in the world would the Judge care about the raisin case? It should show that the dealers had assets that were taken, but I can see how an attorney could twist that a franchise is not a "tangible" thing. This kind of BS always scares me. Just another rat hole they may slide through.
steve_biegler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-15-2015, 04:26 PM   #112
XDCX
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 14,869
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by steve_biegler View Post
Why in the world would the Judge care about the raisin case? It should show that the dealers had assets that were taken, but I can see how an attorney could twist that a franchise is not a "tangible" thing. This kind of BS always scares me. Just another rat hole they may slide through.
I agree, that is odd.

To the extent the government lost the raisin case they'll likely argue that the OLDCO case is different and that's why the government should prevail.

From a positive viewpoint, perhaps the government will see the parallels between the two cases and try to settle the OLDCO case? I still believe that the government does not want this case to go to trial and have depositions performed. Team Obama has already taken their Victory Lap for "saving" GM and Chrysler, the last thing they want right now is for the truth to screw up a good story.
XDCX is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2015, 12:57 PM   #113
XDCX
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 14,869
Default Did the Government just lose their final appeal?

I heard from one of our members via PM that the unconfirmed rumor is that the Treasure just lost their final appeal to get the case dismissed.

If the rumor is true that would be awesome news for the OLDCO dealers in the case.

As before, I'm no expert but I'm betting the government would rather quietly settle this case with the tax payers' dollars as opposed to re-opening the whole Chrysler/GM bailout saga. It will be interesting to see what happens from here.

That said, I'd love to hear Jim Press and Peter Grady give their depositions under oath. The 789 deserve to have the truth be told.

I'll reach out to Len Bellavia and ask if he can either confirm or deny the rumor.
XDCX is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2015, 02:14 PM   #114
DealerLaw.com
Supporting Sponsor
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 39
Default

I am thrilled to report that the rumor is true. The rejected Chrysler dealers defeated the US Treasury's 4th and final attempt to dismiss the complaint. We now proceed with discovery which will include depositions of high level Chrysler officials as well as the President's Auto Task Force. I am confident that the evidence will show that Chrysler terminated the 789 dealers at the direction of the US Government as a condition of the bailout and thereby establish the "Taking" under the 5th Amendment without "just compensation". It has taken us about 4 years to get to first base, but I expect that Justice for the terminated dealer plaintiffs is now in sight. I am proud of my clients for their dedication and perseverance.
DealerLaw.com is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2015, 05:47 PM   #115
srt
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 181
Default

I like the sound of this...time to settle things!
srt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2015, 01:18 PM   #116
XDCX
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 14,869
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DealerLaw.com View Post
I am thrilled to report that the rumor is true. The rejected Chrysler dealers defeated the US Treasury's 4th and final attempt to dismiss the complaint. We now proceed with discovery which will include depositions of high level Chrysler officials as well as the President's Auto Task Force. I am confident that the evidence will show that Chrysler terminated the 789 dealers at the direction of the US Government as a condition of the bailout and thereby establish the "Taking" under the 5th Amendment without "just compensation". It has taken us about 4 years to get to first base, but I expect that Justice for the terminated dealer plaintiffs is now in sight. I am proud of my clients for their dedication and perseverance.
Thanks for the Great News.

It will be interesting to watch the case progress from this point. Like you, I'm 100% convinced that Chrysler terminated the 789 OLDCO Dealers as a condition of the U.S. Government bailout.

Thanks again for the information and I wish you and the OLDCO dealers who are part of the suit much success as your case moves forward.
XDCX is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-23-2015, 08:51 PM   #117
s-works
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 103
Default

While Chrysler and General Motors handled the terminations differently could it be argued that "just compensation" was not satisfied in regards to GM dealerships?

GM was told to make deeper cuts both in dealerships and brands. The compensation to the dealerships was to help move the product and not compensate for the franchise.

Each dealership will be offered an amount based on its inventory, overall cost structure and regional rank, said GM sales chief Mark LaNeve in a Monday interview, without providing figures. The money is intended to help dealers sell their remaining inventories. But if the dealer accepts the payment, GM will not buy the unsold inventory. In addition, the dealer must agree not to sue GM until their franchise agreement expires.
source: The GM Bankruptcy: Gm offers up to $1million to wind down stores. Automotive News June 3, 2009.
s-works is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-24-2015, 07:00 AM   #118
steve_biegler
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,497
Default

It is my understanding that GM would allow the dealers back in if they gave back the "inventory money". I believe this may have been several months later. I only know the Chrysler side of things but have a friend that went through the GM mess. He is out until Monday, I will talk to him then and update my post.
steve_biegler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-24-2015, 09:25 AM   #119
XDCX
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 14,869
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by s-works View Post
While Chrysler and General Motors handled the terminations differently could it be argued that "just compensation" was not satisfied in regards to GM dealerships?

GM was told to make deeper cuts both in dealerships and brands. The compensation to the dealerships was to help move the product and not compensate for the franchise.

Each dealership will be offered an amount based on its inventory, overall cost structure and regional rank, said GM sales chief Mark LaNeve in a Monday interview, without providing figures. The money is intended to help dealers sell their remaining inventories. But if the dealer accepts the payment, GM will not buy the unsold inventory. In addition, the dealer must agree not to sue GM until their franchise agreement expires.
source: The GM Bankruptcy: Gm offers up to $1million to wind down stores. Automotive News June 3, 2009.
While I'm no expert, my understanding is the GM Wind Down Agreement included a provision where the Dealer agreed not to sue the U.S. Government.

I remember vividly that the experts and Task Force representatives indicated Chrysler would go through a "quick-rinse" bankruptcy first so they could correct their mistakes when it was time for GM's "quick-rinse."

If my recollection is correct and the Task Force added verbiage to the GM Wind Down Agreement preventing the GM Dealers from suing the Government then that would, in my opinion, significantly strengthen the case the Chrysler OLDCO Dealers have against the government. It's like the Task Force discovered the vulnerability to the U.S. Government too late to fix it for the Chrysler bankruptcy but they learned from their mistake and handled the GM bankruptcy differently.
XDCX is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-24-2015, 12:01 PM   #120
57years
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 554
Default

XDCX is correct. No GM dealer received any funds for anything but "wind down" money. No parts inventory, no blue sky. "Wind Down" funds calculation by GM were never identified, but upon dealer calculation, they boiled down to 14 months rent. If the dealer filed for arbitration, GM generally offered some pittance to keep from going to Arbitrator, but EVERY legal document had an NO SUE clause, Dealer had to sign.
57years is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
A Trillion Here & There crowe General Discussions 17 02-18-2017 06:50 PM
ADP or R&R vs AUTOMATE birch3x Finance 15 07-23-2011 10:43 AM
Anyone want a R&R F&I printer? MICDJDLR General Discussions 5 01-27-2010 04:17 PM
How many F&I Managers? MARV Automotive Discussions 8 12-29-2009 06:57 AM


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:11 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright DealershipForum.com - 2008 - 2016