Certified specialists in California’s distribution laws


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

    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 >>>

  • Zee One v. Suzuki and Gerald Suzuki v. Suzuki

    Zee One v. Suzuki and Gerald Suzuki v. Suzuki

    (U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois) the firm, working on behalf of the distributor of Suzuki vehicles, defended claims filed by dealers challenging their termination.

    Learn More >>>

  • Inadvertent Franchises and the Graybar Hotel

    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 >>>

  • Monster Beverage Company – A Case Study Of Vertical Distribution Landmines

    Monster Beverage Company – A Case Study Of Vertical Distribution Landmines

    Potential liability for product defects is an expensive and non-trivial concern for all manufactures and their distributors. In recent years, no product has been under more fire than Monster Beverage Company’s popular caffeinated “Monster Energy” drinks.

    Learn More >>>

  • Ninth Circuit Dismisses Robinson-Patman and Sherman Act Claims, Stating:  “We Must Return This Capitalist Rumble to The Forum Where it Belongs:  The Market.”

    Ninth Circuit Dismisses Robinson-Patman and Sherman Act Claims, Stating: “We Must Return This Capitalist Rumble to The Forum Where it Belongs: The Market.”

    Antitrust lawyers well know that price discrimination claims under the Robinson-Patman Act (RPA) can be very difficult to win.

    Read More >>>

  • James M. Mulchay is a Certified Specialist in Franchise and Distribution Law for the State Bar of California

    James M. Mulchay is a Certified Specialist in Franchise and Distribution Law for the State Bar of California

    James M. Mulchay became a Certified Specialist in Franchise and Distribution Law for the State Bar of California, Board of Legal Specialization.Jim served on the State Bar Committee to create the exam for this newly created specializatin and was in the first "class" of attorneys admitted as a certified specialist.

    Learn More >>>

  • American Isuzu v. Fladeboe

    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

    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

    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

    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

    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.

    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

    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 >>>

  • ET Publishing International, Inc., v. Pacific Periodicals, LLC

    ET Publishing International, Inc., v. Pacific Periodicals, LLC

    (U.S. District Court, Central District, County of Los Angeles, 2011), Mulcahy LLP defended a large California distributor of Spanish language periodicals against breach of contract claims from the publisher of those periodicals.

    Learn More >>>

  • Fladeboe v. American Isuzu

    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

    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 >>>

  • Lifesource Water Systems, Inc. v Sun Water Systems, Inc., et al

    Lifesource Water Systems, Inc. v Sun Water Systems, Inc., et al

    (California Superior Court, County of Orange, 2011), Mulcahy LLP defended a manufacturer of water filtration systems against claims of false advertising and unfair competition. The case settled just short of trial.

    Learn More >>>

  • Lippo v. Mobil Oil Corporation

    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 >>>

  • California Court Imposes Strict Product Liability On Car Dealer

    California Court Imposes Strict Product Liability On Car Dealer

    Earlier this week, in an unpublished opinion, a California appellate court imposed strict products liability on a Ventura County car dealership despite its limited role as a non-profiting, “pass-through” participant of a car sale between General Motors and the customer.

    Read More >>>

  • The Recourse Available To A Prospective Beer Distributor When The Manufacturer Withholds Consent To The Transfer Of The Distributorship

    The Recourse Available To A Prospective Beer Distributor When The Manufacturer Withholds Consent To The Transfer Of The Distributorship

    Courts continue to debate to what extent a manufacturer can withhold consent to the transfer of a beer distributorship.

    Read More >>>

  • Lunkenheimer v. Tomkins, P.L.C.

    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.

    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 >>>

  • Concord Foods, Inc. v. Vistar Corporation, et al.

    Concord Foods, Inc. v. Vistar Corporation, et al.

    Our lawyers initiated an action to protect the client's proprietary trade secrets and customer lists from being misappropriated by a competitor. The case was pending before the American Arbitration Association in Los Angeles, California.

    Learn More >>>

  • Hartmann-Lausanne, Inc. v. Hemocue

    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.

    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 >>>


CONTACT MULCAHY LLP®

FOR MORE INFORMATION

 
 
 
 
 


mulcahyfontlogo.jpg

4 Park Plaza, Suite 1230
Irvine, CA 92614
T 949.252.9377
F 949.252.0090

Copyright ©2012 Mulcahy LLP. All rights reserved. The transmission of information to and from the site, in part or in whole, does not create, and receipt does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship between senders and/or recipients and Mulcahy LLP.

Privacy Policy and our Disclaimer.   Franchise Law

mulcahyfontlogo.jpg