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 appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT