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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It's a big fat black mark against the US that they radicalized a lot of these Afghan jihadis in the 80s to fight the soviets and then when they predictably got around to biting the hand that fed them, the US had to invade their homelands, install a bunch of corrupt drug kingpins and kleptocrats, take these guys and torture the hell out of them. Why for example did the US have to sodomize them? Dubya said "they hate us for our freedoms!" Here, try some of that freedom whether you like it or not!!! Now they got even more reasons to hate us-- lets just keep bombing the crap out of their populations, installing more puppet regimes, arming one faction against another, etc etc etc.... the US is becoming a monster. No wonder they hate us. Here's my modest recommendation. How about we follow "Just War" theory in the future. St Augustine had it right. How about we treat these obvious prisoners of war according to the Geneva convention instead of torturing them in sadistic and perverted ways.

  2. As usual, John is "spot-on." The subtle but poignant points he makes are numerous and warrant reflection by mediators and users. Oh but were it so simple.

  3. ACLU. Way to step up against the police state. I see a lot of things from the ACLU I don't like but this one is a gold star in its column.... instead of fighting it the authorities should apologize and back off.

  4. Duncan, It's called the RIGHT OF ASSOCIATION and in the old days people believed it did apply to contracts and employment. Then along came title vii.....that aside, I believe that I am free to work or not work for whomever I like regardless: I don't need a law to tell me I'm free. The day I really am compelled to ignore all the facts of social reality in my associations and I blithely go along with it, I'll be a slave of the state. That day is not today......... in the meantime this proposed bill would probably be violative of 18 usc sec 1981 that prohibits discrimination in contracts... a law violated regularly because who could ever really expect to enforce it along the millions of contracts made in the marketplace daily? Some of these so-called civil rights laws are unenforceable and unjust Utopian Social Engineering. Forcing people to love each other will never work.

  5. I am the father of a sweet little one-year-old named girl, who happens to have Down Syndrome. To anyone who reads this who may be considering the decision to terminate, please know that your child will absolutely light up your life as my daughter has the lives of everyone around her. There is no part of me that condones abortion of a child on the basis that he/she has or might have Down Syndrome. From an intellectual standpoint, however, I question the enforceability of this potential law. As it stands now, the bill reads in relevant part as follows: "A person may not intentionally perform or attempt to perform an abortion . . . if the person knows that the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion solely because the fetus has been diagnosed with Down syndrome or a potential diagnosis of Down syndrome." It includes similarly worded provisions abortion on "any other disability" or based on sex selection. It goes so far as to make the medical provider at least potentially liable for wrongful death. First, how does a medical provider "know" that "the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion SOLELY" because of anything? What if the woman says she just doesn't want the baby - not because of the diagnosis - she just doesn't want him/her? Further, how can the doctor be liable for wrongful death, when a Child Wrongful Death claim belongs to the parents? Is there any circumstance in which the mother's comparative fault will not exceed the doctor's alleged comparative fault, thereby barring the claim? If the State wants to discourage women from aborting their children because of a Down Syndrome diagnosis, I'm all for that. Purporting to ban it with an unenforceable law, however, is not the way to effectuate this policy.

ADVERTISEMENT