Go to Wolters Kluwer VitalLaw.comGo to Wolters Kluwer VitalLaw.com
VitalLaw®
  • Find answers to your questions
  • Log in to access your subscriptions
In depth. On point.
In depth. On point.
  • Home
  • Legal Directory
  • Home
  • Legal Directory
In depth. On point.
  • Articles
  • Articles
  • Law Firms
  • Law Firms
  • Organizations
  • Organizations
    • TOP STORY: Georgia real estate investors indicted in bid rigging probe
    • ACQUISITIONS & MERGERS NEWS: EC approves acquisition of SanDisk by Western Digital
    • ACQUISITIONS & MERGERS NEWS: EC clears acquisition of mobile network operator BASE by Liberty Global
    • ADVERTISING NEWS: Consumer not lovin’ McDonald’s allegedly false mozzarella sticks ads
    • ANTITRUST NEWS: Former prisoners sue over alleged post-release MP3 players tying arrangement
    • ANTITRUST—E.D. Pa.: Class period limited in egg price fixing suit
    • ANTITRUST—Mich. App.: Telehandler distributors’ unlawful non-compete agreement warrants $3.85M judgment
    • BLOG TRACKER—Noteworthy blog posts and other commentary
    • LAW FIRM NEWS: Baker & McKenzie nabs franchise lawyer Maggie Vaughan
    • PRIVACY NEWS: McSweeny discusses privacy concerns over today’s innovative connected cars
    • PRIVACY—9th Cir.: “Prior express consent” found in TCPA claim against airline reservation firm
  • Articles
  • Articles
  • Law Firms
  • Law Firms
  • Organizations
  • Organizations

    Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, ANTITRUST—Mich. App.: Telehandler distributors’ unlawful non-compete agreement warrants $3.85M judgment, (Feb 4, 2016)

    Law Firms Mentioned:Foley & Lardner LLP | Foster, Swift, Collins & Smith, PC
    Organizations Mentioned:Foley & Lardner, LLP | Foster Swift Collins & Smith | Gehl Co. | Manitou North America, Inc. | McCormick International, LLC

    By Greg Hammond, J.D.

    A telescopic handlers (or “telehandlers”) dealer was properly granted $3.85 million in damages on its Michigan Antitrust Reform Act (MARA) counterclaim against a distributor for entering into an illegal horizontal agreement containing a ...

    By Greg Hammond, J.D.

    A telescopic handlers (or “telehandlers”) dealer was properly granted $3.85 million in damages on its Michigan Antitrust Reform Act (MARA) counterclaim against a distributor for entering into an illegal horizontal agreement containing a non-solicitation clause that precluded the dealer from participating in the sale of certain telehandlers. In affirming the damages award with regard to the MARA violation, the Michigan Court of Appeals concluded that the dealer sufficiently proved a per se violation of the MARA, the dealer suffered antitrust injury, the MARA counterclaim was not time-barred, and the damages were sufficiently based on lost business income (Manitou North America, Inc. v. McCormick International, LLC, February 2, 2016, Per Curiam).

    Manitou North America, Inc.—a company that distributes telehandlers to a network of dealers throughout the United States—filed suit against McCormick International, LLC after McCormick terminated the parties’ dealer marketing agreement. A jury found in favor of McCormick’s MARA and Michigan Farm and Utility Equipment Act (MFUEA) counterclaims and awarded McCormick $3.85 million for the MARA violation and $1.3 million for the MFUEA violation. On appeal, Manitou claims that the MARA counterclaim was time-barred; the MARA counterclaim should have been analyzed under the rule of reason; McCormick failed to adequately prove antitrust injury; the MFUEA lost-profit damages were too speculative; and there was no loss associated with the MARA counterclaim.

    Per se MARA violation. After entering into the dealer marketing agreement with McCormick, Manitou entered into an OEM Supply Agreement with telehandler competitor Gehl Company. That agreement contained a non-solicitation provision in which Manitou and Gehl agreed not to compete against each with regard to certain telehandlers and particular dealers, including McCormick, thereby reducing telehandler competition at various business sites. The appellate court concluded that the non-solicitation provision clearly constituted a horizontal restraint on trade and per se violation of the MARA. The court therefore rejected Manitou’s argument that the MARA counterclaim should have been analyzed under the rule of reason.

    Antitrust injury. Allegations that McCormick was prohibited from becoming an authorized dealer or reseller of Gehl telescopic handlers, due to the non-solicitation provision in the Manitou-Gehl OEM Supply Agreement, were sufficient to demonstrate antitrust injury. Allegations of direct injury—that Gehl actually refused to sell telehandlers to McCormick and that McCormick lost a 10 unit sale to a prospective customer—were also sufficient to demonstrate antitrust injury.

    MARA claims not time-barred. Manitou’s argument that the MARA counterclaim should have been dismissed as time-barred under the applicable four-year statute of limitations was also rejected. The court concluded that, because the MARA counterclaim sprung from the same transactional setting as the MFUEA counterclaim, the MARA counterclaim related back to the original filing of the MFUEA counterclaim.

    Damages. The court also affirmed the award of $3.85 million in damages for the MARA counterclaim because the award was based on lost business income claimed on a 2008 tax return. However, the lower court order—awarding $1.3 million in damages for the MFUEA claim—was vacated and remanded because the MFUEA counterclaim was based on an overly speculative claim of lost profits. The evidence, at most, demonstrated that McCormick suffered $69,000 in lost-profit damages relative to the MFUEA counterclaim.

    The case is No. 324063.

    Attorneys: John R. Trentacosta (Foley & Lardner LLP) for Manitou North America Inc. Richard C. Kraus (Foster, Swift, Collins & Smith, PC) for McCormick International LLC.

    Companies: Manitou North America, Inc.; McCormick International, LLC

    Cases: Antitrust FranchisingDistribution MichiganNews

    © 2026 CCH Incorporated and its affiliates and licensors. All rights reserved.

    • Manage Cookie Preferences
    • Privacy Statement
    • Terms of Use