Distribution, Dealership and Franchise Law
Gary Leydig is one of the nation's leading attorneys advocating
the rights of dealers, distributors and franchisees in their dealings
and disputes with their suppliers and franchisors. He represents
and counsels dealers, distributors and franchisees located across the
country and operating in a wide range of industries and service sectors.
The body of law affecting the relationship dealers, distributors and franchisees
have with their suppliers and franchisors is complex and varied. At the
federal level, the Federal Trade Commission Act, the antitrust laws and
other statutes and regulations have substantial impact on the relationship.
At the state level, there is an array of statutes and common law doctrines
that dramatically impact the relationship. Many states have franchise
and franchise-like acts on the books. Many of these franchise statutes
provide substantial rights and remedies to dealers and distributors who
have no notion they are a "franchise" under these laws. Many
states have statutes aimed at protecting dealers in specific industries,
such as automobile dealers, farm equipment dealers, heavy and industrial
equipment dealers, wine and spirit distributors, and the like.
"Many of these franchise statutes provide substantial
rights and remedies to dealers and distributors who have no notion they
are a 'franchise' under these laws."
Many of these statutes reach well beyond the specific industries named
in their titles and, again, many dealers and distributors are unwittingly
operating without knowledge of their rights under these laws. Experience
shows that dealers, distributors and franchisees are often ignorant
of the breadth of rights they possess.
"…you need to know what your rights really are, not just
what the supplier's or franchisor's form contract says they are."
The bottom line is you need to know what your rights really are, not
just what the supplier's or franchisor's form contract says they are.
Does your contract give the supplier the right to terminate without
cause on a few days' or weeks' notice? Does your contract prohibit you
from selling a second or competing line of goods? Are unrealistic or
unachievable sales goals established? Are you required to sue your supplier
or franchisor only in some far-off state? These and many other contract
provisions may be unenforceable and absolutely void under applicable
law. The only way to intelligently deal with your supplier or franchisor
is to know what your rights truly are and to exercise those rights.
Mr. Leydig can review your contracts, advise you of your rights and
counsel you in your ongoing arrangements with your supplier or franchisor.
"…there are times when resolution of a dispute and the enforcement
of your rights can only be achieved through the courts. When that time
comes, you need an attorney with a proven track record of success against
suppliers and franchisors…"
While most disputes can be worked out between reasonable people, there
are times when resolution of a dispute and the enforcement of your rights
can only be achieved through the courts. When that time comes, you need
an attorney with a proven track record of success against suppliers
and franchisors - - suppliers and franchisors who will undoubtedly hire
the very best attorneys from the biggest firms, and who seem to have
inexhaustible resources to throw at those lawyers. Gary Leydig has that
proven track record. In 1996, he obtained a jury verdict and judgment
of more than 1.75 Million Dollars on behalf of a terminated forklift
dealer. The dealership agreement gave the manufacturer the absolute
right to terminate the dealership "at will". To the dealer
and its original attorney it looked like the dealer was dead and that
the many years of hard work and hundreds of thousands of dollars invested
into that business were lost. Gary Leydig saw it differently. He pursued
an action on behalf of the dealer against the manufacturer for wrongful
termination.
"…Gary Leydig obtained a jury verdict and judgment of more
than 1.75 Million Dollars on behalf of a terminated forklift dealer."
Through creative and aggressive lawyering he proved that the dealership
agreement was in fact a franchise and that the dealer was entitled to
all of the protections of a franchisee under the Illinois Franchise
Disclosure Act. First among those rights was the right to be terminated
only for good cause, regardless of what the manufacturer's contract
said to the contrary. This case, To-Am Equipment Company, Inc. v. Mitsubishi
Caterpillar Forklift America, Inc., is widely recognized and cited by
lawyers, legal treatises and the courts as a watershed in the fight
for the protection of dealers from wrongful and arbitrary terminations.
"In a 1999 opinion published by the United States Court of Appeals
for the Seventh Circuit, Mr. Leydig was described by the court as 'a
Franchise Act maven' and 'one who…actually understands franchise
law.'"
In a 1999 opinion published by the United States Court of Appeals for
the Seventh Circuit, Gary Leydig was described by the court as "a
Franchise Act maven" and "one who…actually understands
franchise law." (Pyramid Controls, Inc. v. Siemens Industrial Automation,
Inc.). In 2003, following a three week jury trial in the United States
District Court in Minnesota, Mr. Leydig obtained a verdict in excess
of 14 Million Dollars on behalf of another wrongfully terminated forklift
dealer. Acting under the authority of its form dealership contract,
the manufacturer threatened, and ultimately followed through on its
threat, to terminate the dealership when the dealer took on a second
line of forklift trucks.
"….following a three week trial in the
United States District Court in Minnesota….Gary Leydig obtained
a jury verdict in excess of 14 Million Dollars on behalf of another
wrongfully terminated forklift dealer."
Proceeding under a little-used Minnesota statute dealing
with "heavy and utility equipment", Mr. Leydig successfully
argued that the manufacturer's form contract provisions, prohibiting
the carrying of a competing line of forklift trucks and allowing terminations
"at will," were void. He then proceeded to prove that the
market penetration requirements imposed upon the dealer by the manufacturer
were unreasonable and that the dealer's inability to meet those requirements
was not "good cause" for termination. (Minnesota Supply Company
v. The Raymond Corporation).
