ILNews

Humvee maker wins $277M

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A rush to equip troop-carrying Humvees with protective armor during the bloodiest days of the Iraq war resulted in millions of dollars in overcharges to the federal government for which the armor provider is liable, an Indiana judge ruled this month.

Humvee maker AM General LLC of Mishawaka is owed more than $277 million by the company that supplied kits for troops to retrofit the vehicles with armor in the field dating to 2004, and for armor installed on Humvees in later years, St. Joseph Superior Judge Michael P. Scopelitis ruled in AM General LLC v. BAE Systems Inc., et al., 71D07-0907-PL00195.

In a series of rulings including a 194-page order issued April 2, Scopelitis ordered British defense contractor BAE Systems to pay judgments totaling $277,939,519 to AM General for breach of contract and violations of most-favored customer clauses.

“We intend to proceed. Post trial we have a couple of options, a motion to correct error or a notice of appeal,” said Bingham Greenebaum Doll LLP partner Karl Mulvaney, who has joined BAE’s appellate team. “We’re considering our options at this point and no decision has been made.”

Scopelitis’ April 2 order includes findings of fact that paint a picture of rampant overcharges from BAE and its predecessor companies that AM General passed on to the Army, even as AM General sought to determine true costs. Armor Holdings, which developed the retrofit armor kits, was purchased by BAE, and Armor Holdings’ executives received multi-million-dollar payments and retention bonuses, Scopelitis noted.

In April 2007, the Army required BAE to provide certified cost or pricing data to ensure that its profits were in line with those deemed reasonable for tank and vehicle purchases, generally between 5 and 15 percent. The Army’s insistence on accountability came during what would become the deadliest year of the war for American forces, when 899 service members died in Iraq.

“Because of the continuing conflict in Iraq, AMG and (the Army) faced a vital procurement obligation,” Scopelitis wrote. “To prevent Coalition forces from increasing risks due to (improvised explosive devices, the Army) needed to continue to provide armored vehicles to the Army without interruption.”

“BAE was concerned for months that disclosing its costs data would reveal excessive profits,” including markups on armor kits of 36 to more than 44 percent, according to Scopelitis’ findings. The government ultimately alleged gouging by BAE, including such allegations that windshield wiper extenders for Humvees were marked up as much as nine times more than the government would consider fair or reasonable.

BAE provided Army procurement officials with inaccurate, incomplete or defective cost estimates, the judge wrote. The company “modified its cost or pricing data to artificially inflate its cost and thereby reduce its apparent profit rate,” according to findings.

But BAE also was the supplier stipulated by the Pentagon. “This was a unique technology which we moved heaven and earth to put together, and we felt it was protected and don’t feel this was an issue,” Mulvaney said of armor pricing.

“BAE Systems strongly disagrees with the judge’s ruling in this extremely complex subcontract dispute, and will appeal the decision,” the company said in a statement. “BAE Systems is firmly committed to the principles of fair contracting and providing both value and performance in support of its many government and commercial customers.”

In 2008, the Army ordered AM General to seek an $84.5 million price reduction from BAE, according to the findings, but AM General continued to be denied access to BAE’s cost data. Scopelitis wrote that BAE declined to cut prices on its armor units sold to AM General and instead, “sought to trade the inevitable price reduction for contractual concessions from AMG.”

But AM General’s contract with BAE required BAE to supply AM General with certified cost or pricing data on request, and it required BAE to indemnify AM General, Scopelitis wrote.

By April 2012, the military informed AM General that the government had been overcharged more than $410 million due to BAE’s pricing for armored parts, according to the findings. A military review board later reduced that amount significantly, and AM General agreed to settle.

Under the settlement, the military would continue to withhold payment of more than $62 million from AM General due to BAE’s overcharges, and AM General would pay the government half of the net most-favored contractor judgment it might receive in its litigation against BAE. Scopelitis awarded $113,673,152 under that claim, so the government’s share is more than $56.8 million.

“Under Indiana law, BAE is required to indemnify AMG for the amounts that AMG reasonably agreed to give (the government) to settle its pricing claim,” Scopelitis wrote.

Meanwhile, BAE failed to persuade the court to find in its favor on claims that AM General misappropriated trade secrets when it decided to make the armored parts itself and used components from BAE and materials that the company claimed were trade secrets to reverse-engineer and manufacture the armor panels and kits.

Scopelitis ruled that the materials AM General used to develop its own armor were readily available and were not trade secrets. “Reverse engineering is lawful under trade secrets law so long as the product was obtained lawfully,” he wrote. “BAE has not established damages.”

Scopelitis ruled after a three-week trial in October in South Bend that attracted high-powered, connected legal firms on both sides.

AM General was represented by LaDue Curran Kuehn LLC of South Bend with backing from Washington powerhouse Williams & Connolly LLP. The Vault.com 2013 Law Firm Rankings based on nationwide associate surveys places Williams & Connolly as the nation’s No. 1 white-collar defense firm and No. 2 Washington, D.C., firm.

“All I’m authorized to say is the company has no comment beyond what is actually in the (court) papers,” said Paul E. Harold of LaDue Curran Keuhn, who with John LaDue represented AM General as local counsel. Williams & Connolly partner David Kendall said in an email, “We will let the decision speak for itself.”

BAE was represented by Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP of Indianapolis and the Washington firm WilmerHale, rated the No. 3 Washington, D.C., firm in the Vault survey. William C. Wagner of Taft declined to comment. Juanita Crowley, the attorney of record for WilmerHale, has retired.

According to the Federal Contractor Misconduct Database maintained by the Project on Government Oversight at www.contractormisconduct.org, BAE is the ninth-largest U.S. government contractor with contracts worth more than $6.87 billion in fiscal year 2011. The database records 13 instances of misconduct by BAE since 1995 totaling more than $588 million.

BAE recorded international sales of more than $27 billion in 2012, according to company financial information.

An AM General spokesman said the company would not comment beyond the ruling.•
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Applause, applause, applause ..... but, is this duty to serve the constitutional order not much more incumbent upon the State, whose only aim is to be pure and unadulterated justice, than defense counsel, who is also charged with gaining a result for a client? I agree both are responsible, but it seems to me that the government attorneys bear a burden much heavier than defense counsel .... "“I note, much as we did in Mechling v. State, 16 N.E.3d 1015 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), trans. denied, that the attorneys representing the State and the defendant are both officers of the court and have a responsibility to correct any obvious errors at the time they are committed."

  2. Do I have to hire an attorney to get co-guardianship of my brother? My father has guardianship and my older sister was his co-guardian until this Dec 2014 when she passed and my father was me to go on as the co-guardian, but funds are limit and we need to get this process taken care of quickly as our fathers health isn't the greatest. So please advise me if there is anyway to do this our self or if it requires a lawyer? Thank you

  3. I have been on this program while on parole from 2011-2013. No person should be forced mentally to share private details of their personal life with total strangers. Also giving permission for a mental therapist to report to your parole agent that your not participating in group therapy because you don't have the financial mean to be in the group therapy. I was personally singled out and sent back three times for not having money and also sent back within the six month when you aren't to be sent according to state law. I will work to het this INSOMM's removed from this state. I also had twelve or thirteen parole agents with a fifteen month period. Thanks for your time.

  4. Our nation produces very few jurists of the caliber of Justice DOUGLAS and his peers these days. Here is that great civil libertarian, who recognized government as both a blessing and, when corrupted by ideological interests, a curse: "Once the investigator has only the conscience of government as a guide, the conscience can become ‘ravenous,’ as Cromwell, bent on destroying Thomas More, said in Bolt, A Man For All Seasons (1960), p. 120. The First Amendment mirrors many episodes where men, harried and harassed by government, sought refuge in their conscience, as these lines of Thomas More show: ‘MORE: And when we stand before God, and you are sent to Paradise for doing according to your conscience, *575 and I am damned for not doing according to mine, will you come with me, for fellowship? ‘CRANMER: So those of us whose names are there are damned, Sir Thomas? ‘MORE: I don't know, Your Grace. I have no window to look into another man's conscience. I condemn no one. ‘CRANMER: Then the matter is capable of question? ‘MORE: Certainly. ‘CRANMER: But that you owe obedience to your King is not capable of question. So weigh a doubt against a certainty—and sign. ‘MORE: Some men think the Earth is round, others think it flat; it is a matter capable of question. But if it is flat, will the King's command make it round? And if it is round, will the King's command flatten it? No, I will not sign.’ Id., pp. 132—133. DOUGLAS THEN WROTE: Where government is the Big Brother,11 privacy gives way to surveillance. **909 But our commitment is otherwise. *576 By the First Amendment we have staked our security on freedom to promote a multiplicity of ideas, to associate at will with kindred spirits, and to defy governmental intrusion into these precincts" Gibson v. Florida Legislative Investigation Comm., 372 U.S. 539, 574-76, 83 S. Ct. 889, 908-09, 9 L. Ed. 2d 929 (1963) Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, concurring. I write: Happy Memorial Day to all -- God please bless our fallen who lived and died to preserve constitutional governance in our wonderful series of Republics. And God open the eyes of those government officials who denounce the constitutions of these Republics by arbitrary actions arising out capricious motives.

  5. From back in the day before secularism got a stranglehold on Hoosier jurists comes this great excerpt via Indiana federal court judge Allan Sharp, dedicated to those many Indiana government attorneys (with whom I have dealt) who count the law as a mere tool, an optional tool that is not to be used when political correctness compels a more acceptable result than merely following the path that the law directs: ALLEN SHARP, District Judge. I. In a scene following a visit by Henry VIII to the home of Sir Thomas More, playwriter Robert Bolt puts the following words into the mouths of his characters: Margaret: Father, that man's bad. MORE: There is no law against that. ROPER: There is! God's law! MORE: Then God can arrest him. ROPER: Sophistication upon sophistication! MORE: No, sheer simplicity. The law, Roper, the law. I know what's legal not what's right. And I'll stick to what's legal. ROPER: Then you set man's law above God's! MORE: No, far below; but let me draw your attention to a fact I'm not God. The currents and eddies of right and wrong, which you find such plain sailing, I can't navigate. I'm no voyager. But in the thickets of law, oh, there I'm a forester. I doubt if there's a man alive who could follow me there, thank God... ALICE: (Exasperated, pointing after Rich) While you talk, he's gone! MORE: And go he should, if he was the Devil himself, until he broke the law! ROPER: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law! MORE: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? ROPER: I'd cut down every law in England to do that! MORE: (Roused and excited) Oh? (Advances on Roper) And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you where would you hide, Roper, the laws being flat? (He leaves *1257 him) This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast man's laws, not God's and if you cut them down and you're just the man to do it d'you really think you would stand upright in the winds that would blow then? (Quietly) Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake. ROPER: I have long suspected this; this is the golden calf; the law's your god. MORE: (Wearily) Oh, Roper, you're a fool, God's my god... (Rather bitterly) But I find him rather too (Very bitterly) subtle... I don't know where he is nor what he wants. ROPER: My God wants service, to the end and unremitting; nothing else! MORE: (Dryly) Are you sure that's God! He sounds like Moloch. But indeed it may be God And whoever hunts for me, Roper, God or Devil, will find me hiding in the thickets of the law! And I'll hide my daughter with me! Not hoist her up the mainmast of your seagoing principles! They put about too nimbly! (Exit More. They all look after him). Pgs. 65-67, A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS A Play in Two Acts, Robert Bolt, Random House, New York, 1960. Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen. of Indiana, Indianapolis, for defendants. Childs v. Duckworth, 509 F. Supp. 1254, 1256 (N.D. Ind. 1981) aff'd, 705 F.2d 915 (7th Cir. 1983)

ADVERTISEMENT