ILNews

Humvee maker, defense giant BAE wrangle over $277M judgment

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A dispute over the true cost of Humvee body armor rushed to the battlefield in the deadliest days of the Iraq war has resulted in a court battle that includes suggestions that one of the world’s top defense contractors may have serious business problems as it argues against posting full security for a $277 million judgment.

British defense contractor BAE Systems Inc. has asked the Indiana Court of Appeals to stay execution of the judgment pending appeal. Mishawaka-based Humvee maker AM General LLC argues it’s entitled to the judgment and opposes BAE’s motion.

BAE argues in court filings this month that a ruling in St. Joseph Superior Court in November ordering it to post an appeal bond or irrevocable letter of credit in the amount of $290 million “effectively holds the bond cap statute unconstitutional.”

BAE argued it should only have to provide security in the amount of $25 million under I.C. 34-49-5-3, which BAE argues caps appeal bonds at that amount.

BAE supplied armor kits that could be installed on AM General’s Humvees. St. Joseph Superior Judge Michael Scopelitis in April ordered BAE to pay $277,939,519 to AM General, ruling BAE and predecessor companies were in breach of contract and violated most-favored customer clauses by overcharging for armor kits that troops used in the field to retrofit Humvees.

BAE appealed in October and earlier this month filed a motion to stay execution of judgment pending appeal.

“The trial court erroneously concluded that BAE Systems’ alternate form of security … was not sufficient,” the company’s brief says.

“There is simply no evidence that BAE Systems itself, or its parent company, present any risk of not complying with any final judgment in this case,” the company argues. Its filings say there is “virtually no chance” BAE will not satisfy a final judgment.

AM General argued in reply that BAE misreads the appeals bond statute, which allows discretion on when the cap may not apply, and that in any event, Trial Rule 62(D) governs a request to stay the trial court order.

“AM General received its judgment on April 2, 2013, and BAE has managed to avoid posting full security against the judgment as required by Trial Rule 62(D) for more than 37 weeks,” the Humvee maker argues. “AM General is entitled to protection of its very large judgment without further delay.”

“The trial court considered substantial evidence attached to AM General’s opposition brief about the state of BAE’s finances and serious problems facing its business,” AM General argues in its pleadings.

“No BAE officer or employee with knowledge affirmed the representations about the company’s financial condition,” according to AM General’s filing.

BAE says it recorded international sales of more than $27 billion in 2012, and its parent company, BAE Systems PLC, is rated as the world’s second-largest defense contractor, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute.

No arguments before the Court of Appeals have been scheduled in the case.

 

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. For many years this young man was "family" being my cousin's son. Then he decided to ignore my existence and that of my daughter who was very hurt by his actions after growing up admiring, Jason. Glad he is doing well, as for his opinion, if you care so much you wouldn't ignore the feelings of those who cared so much about you for years, Jason.

  2. Good riddance to this dangerous activist judge

  3. What is the one thing the Hoosier legal status quo hates more than a whistleblower? A lawyer whistleblower taking on the system man to man. That must never be rewarded, must always, always, always be punished, lest the whole rotten tree be felled.

  4. I want to post this to keep this tread alive and hope more of David's former clients might come forward. In my case, this coward of a man represented me from June 2014 for a couple of months before I fired him. I knew something was wrong when he blatantly lied about what he had advised me in my contentious and unfortunate divorce trial. His impact on the proceedings cast a very long shadow and continues to impact me after a lengthy 19 month divorce. I would join a class action suit.

  5. The dispute in LB Indiana regarding lake front property rights is typical of most beach communities along our Great Lakes. Simply put, communication to non owners when visiting the lakefront would be beneficial. The Great Lakes are designated navigational waters (including shorelines). The high-water mark signifies the area one is able to navigate. This means you can walk, run, skip, etc. along the shores. You can't however loiter, camp, sunbath in front of someones property. Informational signs may be helpful to owners and visitors. Our Great Lakes are a treasure that should be enjoyed by all. PS We should all be concerned that the Long Beach, Indiana community is on septic systems.

ADVERTISEMENT