1) May 6, 2016
New York Court of Appeals Rejects Sales
Effectiveness Metric
On May 3, 2016, the New York Court of Appeals (New York's highest court)
issued its decision in Beck Chevrolet Co., Inc. v. General Motors LLC.
The Court ruled that the “sales effectiveness” metric that General Motors LLC
(“GM”) uses to evaluate its dealers’ sales performance violates the New York
statute's ban on "unreasonable, arbitrary or unfair” sales performance
standards. Because GM’s metric is similar to the metrics used by most motor
vehicle OEMs, this ruling warrants serious attention by the entire industry. In
addition, the Court addressed another recurring issue: Whether a change to a
dealer’s assigned area of responsibility (“AOR”) constitutes a protestable
franchise “modification” under state dealer law.
The sales effectiveness ruling
Contacts
Carl Chiappa
Partner, New York
carl.chiappa@hoganlovells.com
+1 212 918 3612
Scott Golden
Partner, New York
scott.golden@hoganlovells.com
T: +1 212 918 8425
Jason Isralowitz
GM evaluates dealers based on a "Retail Sales Index" or "RSI," which is
computed by dividing (1) the dealer's actual retail sales, wherever made, by
(2) the dealer's expected sales (derived by applying state-average, segmentadjusted brand sales penetration to the competitive group registrations in the
dealer's AOR). This, or a very similar, calculation is used by many OEMs,
although some use regional or national average, rather than state average, as
a benchmark.
The Court ruled that RSI was unreasonable and unfair because it does not
take into account either "local brand popularity" or "import bias."
Partner, New York
jason.isralowitz@hoganlovells.com
T: +1 212 918 3648
Colm Moran
Partner, Los Angeles
colm.moran@hoganlovells.com
T: +1 310 785 4661
John Sullivan
Potential effects of ruling
While the decision is controlling precedent only in the State of New York, its
importance is likely to be more far-reaching and raises troublesome practical
issues for most OEMs. As far as we are aware, there is no accepted definition
of "local brand popularity" and no accepted way to determine how much of a
brand's below-average performance in a particular market is the result of low
"brand popularity" and how much is the result of poor dealer performance.
The Court’s decision does not address, much less resolve, this difficulty.
Beck appears to be the first decision by a state high court concerning the
reasonableness and fairness of a sales effectiveness metric. The likelihood
that it will be followed as persuasive authority by courts and agencies in other
states is, therefore, high and it is sure to be cited and relied upon by dealer
attorneys in most or all performance-based termination cases in the future. It
also seems likely that the case and the statutory provision upon which it is
based will affect legislative action in other states. Moreover, the Beck ruling
appears to preclude the use of sales effectiveness in New York for any
evaluative or measurement purpose (as opposed to being limited to the
termination context).
In light of the Beck decision it will be more important than ever that an OEM:
(1) consider whether the benchmark used in its sales effectiveness test can
fairly be applied to a particular dealer, or whether special circumstances
might require adjustments to the sales effectiveness calculation; (2) look at
metrics in addition to sales effectiveness to corroborate any dealer
performance evaluation; and (3) cite and rely upon performance deficiencies
in addition to poor sales effectiveness, wherever possible, in making a
decision to terminate.
Partner, New York
john.sullivan@hoganlovells.com
T: +1 212 918 3635
hoganlovells.com
The world is changing.
So are we.
We created Hogan Lovells to
be a different kind of law firm a law firm that anticipates
change to support you
strategically, commercially and
day to day.
Changes to area of responsibility
The Court also ruled in Beck that a change to a dealer's AOR may be a
“modification” of the dealer's “franchise” triggering statutory notice and
protest rights, even if the dealer agreement gives the franchisor the right to
revise the AOR in its sole discretion. The Court held that whether the AOR
revision is a regulated "modification" depends on whether the change “may”
substantially and adversely affect the dealer's "rights, obligations, investment
or return on investment." The Court provided no guidance, however, on how
to determine whether a change may have a "substantial and adverse” effect,
and dealers frequently take the position that any change may substantially
and adversely affect their rights, regardless of whether the AOR is being
enlarged or reduced.
While Beck’s modification ruling is not likely to have as great a precedential
effect as the sales effectiveness portion of the decision, it is likely to affect
whether and how a franchisor provides notice of a proposed AOR change, at
least under some state statutes.
About Hogan Lovells
Hogan Lovells is an international legal practice that includes Hogan Lovells International LLP, Hogan Lovells US LLP and their affiliated businesses.
Atlantic House, Holborn Viaduct, London EC1A 2FG, United Kingdom
Columbia Square, 555 Thirteenth Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20004, United States of America
Disclaimer
This publication is for information only. It is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, a lawyer-client relationship.
So that we can send you this email and other marketing material we believe may interest you, we keep your email address and other information supplied by
you on a database.The database is accessible by all Hogan Lovells' offices, which includes offices both inside and outside the European Economic Area
(EEA). The level of protection for personaldata outside the EEA may not be as comprehensive as within the EEA. To stop receiving email communications
from us please click here.
The word "partner" is used to describe a partner or member of Hogan Lovells International LLP, Hogan Lovells US LLP, or any of their affiliated entities or any
employee orconsultant with equivalent standing. Certain individuals, who are designated as partners, but who are not members of Hogan Lovells International
LLP, do not hold qualifications equivalent to members.
For more information about Hogan Lovells, the partners and their qualifications, see http://www.hoganlovells.com/.
Where case studies are included, results achieved do not guarantee similar outcomes for other clients.
© Hogan Lovells 2016. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising.