The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota recently granted summary judgment to a beverage manufacturer, as the court concluded that the manufacturer had not violated the Minnesota Franchise Act by terminating the plaintiffs’ distributorship agreements. In Day Distributing Co. v. Nantucket Allserve, Inc., 2008 WL 2945442 (D. Minn. July 25, 2008), the court granted summary judgment in favor of Cadbury, the manufacturer, on all claims presented by the plaintiffs. The court first determined that the plaintiffs were not franchisees under the “business ...

In Kehm Oil Company v. Texaco, Inc., 2008 WL 2924954 (3d Cir. July 31, 2008), the Third Circuit held that Texaco, Inc. did not violate the Petroleum Marketing Practices Act because it no longer was in a franchise relationship with the dealers who operated Texaco branded gas stations. This decision is significant because it upholds the notion that a dealer cannot claim a “franchise relationship” exists when no contractual relationship with the franchisor has existed for many years.

In this case, the dealerships, owned by the same individual, entered into numerous franchise ...

In B & E Juices, Inc. v. Energy Brands, Inc., Bus. Fran. Guide ¶13,748 (D. Conn. Oct. 26, 2007), a federal district court in Connecticut found that a beverage distributor was not a “franchisee” for purposes of the Connecticut Franchise Act. The plaintiff beverage distributor sought a preliminary injunction restraining the defendant manufacturer from terminating a distribution agreement between the parties. B & E asserted that it had a franchise relationship with Energy Brands and that under the Connecticut Franchise Act, a franchisor may only terminate a franchise for good ...

The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota recently denied a distributor’s motion for a preliminary injunction, relying on two conclusions of law favorable to the manufacturer defendant.  In Coyne’s & Company v. Enesco, 2007 U.S. Dist LEXIS 79003 (D. Minn. Oct. 12, 2007), the plaintiff had been granted the exclusive rights to distribute the defendant’s product line in the United States and Mexico, in exchange for a 50 percent markup on the products. Plaintiff sued for a preliminary injunction when it appeared the defendant would begin distributing its ...