Pricing Distribution and Compliance Counseling
Mulcahy LLP brings franchise, antitrust and competition trial and practical business experience to the complex issues of vertical and horizontal relationships with suppliers, distributors, retail customers and competitors. We have extensive experience in counseling on pricing, competitor collaborations, trade association activities, exclusive dealing arrangements, territorial and other non-price restrictions, suggested resale prices, minimum advertised pricing programs, volume, functional and bundled price discounts, rebates and promotional allowances, requirements contracts, and most-favored nation clauses.
We regularly work with clients on the review and development of marketing, pricing, and franchise and distribution programs. We assist clients in overhauling distribution and retail channel agreements and other sales and marketing assistance programs, and help develop pro-competitive business strategies that comply with the myriad of antitrust, franchise and other industry specific regulations that may affect our clients.
Related Articles
-
Tailored Living, LLC v. PremierGarage Holdings, LLC
(U.S. District Court, Central District, County of Orange, 2011), Mulcahy LLP initiated and action on behalf of its franchisor client against a manufacturer for breach of the parties’ supply agreement. The case was dismissed on April 17, 2012 following a settlement in which the client acquired the trademarks and service marks of the manufacturer.
Learn More >>>
-
-
Inadvertent Franchises and the Graybar Hotel
The Orange County Lawyer, the official publication of the Orange County Bar Association, has published James Mulcahy and Gerard Davey’s article “Inadvertent Franchises and the Graybar Hotel” in its June, 2010 issue. This article addresses the problems that can befall a business that inadvertently operates as a “franchisor” under Federal or California franchise law and provides a roadmap to companies that are trying to avoid the “franchisor” classification.
Read More >>>
-
-
-
-
American Isuzu v. Fladeboe
(U.S. District Court, Central District of California) the firm, on behalf of the U.S. distributor of Isuzu vehicles, successfully prosecuted a vehicle dealer for trademark infringement after the dealer sued for breach of contract.
Learn More >>>
-
Barnett’s v. American Suzuki
(North Carolina Department of Motor Vehicles) the firm, on behalf of the U.S. distributor of Suzuki vehicles, defended a vehicle dealer’s protest of the addition of a new dealer and claim of unfair allocation of product in violation of North Carolina law.
Learn More >>>
-
Bosch v. Suzuki
(California New Motor Vehicle Board) the firm, on behalf of the distributor of Suzuki vehicles, defended a dealer’s protest of its termination. The firm obtained a stipulated order dismissing the proceeding, with the dealer paying the firm’s client for its fees and expenses.
Learn More >>>
-
Cascade v. American Suzuki
(U.S. District Court, District of Oregon) the firm, representing the U.S. distributor of Suzuki vehicles, defended numerous claims asserted by a terminated vehicle dealer against the distributor and the dealer who replaced the terminated dealer.
Learn More >>>
-
Childress v. Suzuki
(Arizona Motor Vehicle Board) the firm represented the distributor of Suzuki vehicles and obtained a dismissal of a dealer’s protest of its termination. The firm then successfully handled the opposition to the dealer’s appeal.
Learn More >>>
-
Clark Equipment Company v. Lift Parts Mfg.
Jim Mulcahy successfully represented Clark Equipment in cases brought under the United States Copyright Act, Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, federal and state unfair competition law, and under sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, their counterparts under state antitrust laws, and the Robinson Patman Act.
Learn More >>>
-
Continental Sales v. American Suzuki
(Utah Department of Motor Vehicles) the firm, representing the U.S. distributor of Suzuki vehicles, opposed a vehicle dealer’s petition to prevent the relocation of another vehicle dealer of the same line make in the relevant market area.
Learn More >>>
-
-
Fladeboe v. American Isuzu
(Orange County Superior Court) the firm represented the U.S. distributor of Isuzu vehicles, defending the claims of a vehicle dealer who alleged that the distributor had wrongfully withheld consent to the transfer of the franchise.
Learn More >>>
-
LA Suzuki v. Suzuki
(California New Motor Vehicle Board) the firm represented the distributor of Suzuki vehicles when one of its dealers protested the addition of a new dealer. The firm’s handling of the matter led the dealer to dismiss its claims with prejudice during discovery.
Learn More >>>
-
-
Lippo v. Mobil Oil Corporation
(U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois), Lawmen’s and Shooter’s Supply, Inc. v. Smith and Wesson (U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida), and Smith and Wesson v. Knight Enterprises (U.S. District Court, Arizona) Jim Mulcahy was lead trial counsel for Smith and Wesson and Mobil in claims alleging violations of antitrust laws, trademark infringement, violation of franchising statutes, and breach of manufacturer/dealer contracts.
Learn More >>>
-
-
-
Lunkenheimer v. Tomkins, P.L.C.
(U.S. District Court, Southern District of Ohio) Jim Mulcahy was the lead trial counsel for Tomkins, P.L.C., a multinational company based in the United Kingdom, in a suit brought by an industrial valve company alleging breach of contract, fraud, trademark infringement, antitrust violations, theft of trade secrets and unfair competition.
Learn More >>>
-
PRASA v. Beatrice Corp.
(U.S. District Court, District of Puerto Rico) Jim Mulcahy was the lead trial counsel for Beatrice in a $100 million suit alleging breach of implied and express warranties after Puerto Rico’s water supply system failed.
Learn More >>>
-
-
Hartmann-Lausanne, Inc. v. Hemocue
(Orange County Superior Court; JAMS Orange County) the firm tried the claims of a Texas distributor of medical products for unpaid post-termination commissions against the U.S. subsidiary of the Swedish manufacturer of the products.
Learn More >>>
-
RGB Systems, Inc. v. Valcom, Inc.
Mulcahy LLP is working with the Madison, Wisconsin firm of DeWitt Ross & Stevens, S. C. in defending a lawsuit against their manufacturer client involving claims of patent infringement. The case is currently pending in the U.S. District Court, Central District, County of Orange.
Learn More >>>