Following the termination of over 1,000 dealerships by General Motors and nearly 800 by Chrysler, federal legislation (HR 3288, Sec 747) was introduced to provide a procedure for the review of the termination decisions. The bill, signed into law on December 16 of 2009, established criteria for the arbitration process, which was organized through the American Arbitration Association. Among the criteria that arbitrators were to consider were the dealership’s profitability, economic viability, market territory, sales performance metrics, and the manufacturer’s business plan.
Seventy-three of the dealerships that pursued arbitration retained Anderson Economic Group for expert analysis in the areas of demography, geography, sales performance analysis, economic viability, and financial analyses. These dealers were located across 23 different states. Fifty-five were General Motors dealerships, and 18 were Chrysler dealerships.
We worked with each dealership to develop a plan of work that focused on the critical elements of their case. These included geographic and demographic assessments to determine if trade area’s were properly assigned, and if performance metrics accurately accounted for local market conditions. In a number of cases we also provided financial analyses to measure the economic viability of a dealership from a profitability standpoint, and to benchmark historic financial performance against an industry average. We also assessed the overall industry structure, economic conditions, and the business plans that manufacturer’s cited as reasons to support dealership terminations. In doing so we were able to illustrate inconsistencies in their positions, and demonstrate that, in many instances, the termination of dealerships was actually harmful to the manufacturer’s economic interests. We also provided consultation regarding settlement and hearing strategies, as well as rebuttal to opposing expert analyses.
Our analyses were used by dealerships to evaluate the strength of their case, to negotiate favorable settlements prior to arbitration, and in 19 cases our experts presented findings before an arbitrator. By the end of the arbitration process more than 90 percent of our clients had received favorable financial settlements, or had been reinstated as dealerships.
This guide is for dealers that are considering participating in the arbitration process established by H.R. 3288, which was signed in to law by President Obama on December 16, 2009. It reviews the timeline and arbitration process, and the criteria that will be considered by the arbitrator. It concludes with some practical steps dealers should take as they consider whether to participate in the arbitration process.
Patrick L. Anderson and Ilhan K. Geckil
A review of valuation methods in the alcoholic beverage industry.
The vast majority of businesses in the United States are privately held, and approximately 99 percent meet a common government definition of “small.” However, we know surprisingly little about the market values of these organizations. In this paper, we estimate the market value of privately held firms in the United States from sources on earnings, assets, and reported market value of multiple forms of business entities, including corporations, partnerships, LLCs, and sole proprietorships. We discuss various theoretical and practical methods of valuing assets, including those arising from economics, neoclassical finance, portfolio theory, and tradition. Concluding that most of them are not appropriate for valuing private firms, we use insights from dynamic programming and ratio analyses from traditional technique to produce a new estimate based on reported taxable earnings, net worth, and tax filing status. Using this approach, we estimate that privately held U.S. firms had earnings that exceeded those of publicly held firms in two recent years by a significant margin. Moreover, the market value of these firms exceeded that of publicly traded firms. We also conclude that policymakers, perhaps grossly, underestimate the true scale of “small” and privately held firms in the economy.
A small law firm in Toledo, Ohio retained AEG to calculate economic damages, after a chiropractor invented an orthopedic pillow. The pillow was designed to be placed between a person’s knees while sleeping to reduce back pain. In 2000, n was sued by Banyan Licensing on a claim that they had superior rights to the design through an existing patent.
The suit at hand was a legal malpractice suit where Anderson Economic Group calculated the chiropractor’s lost ability to collect royalty payments from the sale of the orthopedic pillow in the United States.
We prepared an expert report. Patrick Anderson provided deposition testimony about the report. Mr. Anderson also testified in the Court in Toledo. In addition, we provided an analysis of the opposing expert’s report, and questions to be posed to the opposing expert.
After the trial, AEG’s client got a favorable settlement offer.