Caterpillar hit with $100 million US jury verdict in importer's lawsuit
Adds comment from Caterpillar in paragraph 3
By Mike Scarcella
April 17 (Reuters) -Caterpillar CAT.N owes $100 million to an importer that accused the heavy equipment maker of unlawfully interfering with a key sales agreement and driving it out of business, a Delaware federal jury said on Tuesday.
The jury concluded that Irving, Texas-based Caterpillar was responsible for contract-related damages suffered by the importer, International Construction Products (ICP).
Caterpillar in a statement on Wednesday said it "respect[s] the jury's verdict and will review our legal options."The verdict,which followed nearly 10 years of litigation and about two weeks of trial,can be appealed.
“This victory not only vindicates our client's perseverance but also sets a precedent for resilience and justice in the face of adversity,” said ICP's lawyer William Isaacson. He said the company's business had been “devastated.”
Asheville, North Carolina-based ICP, founded in 2013, billed itself as an innovator that was importing and selling new heavy construction equipment directly to consumers through the industry’s dominant online forum, IronPlanet.
IronPlanet was founded in 1999 as an online auction platform for used construction and other equipment. According to the lawsuit, IronPlanet in 2014 ended its contract with ICP “as a direct result of pressure from Caterpillar and others.”
Caterpillar countered that ICP had "decided to stop doing business with IronPlanet.” It denied at the trial that it interfered with ICP’s business agreement with IronPlanet, and also argued that ICP had not shown it sustained any damages.
ICP's 2015 lawsuit alleged violations of U.S. antitrust law along with its contract claim. The lawsuit said the termination of the contract was "contrary to IronPlanet's economic interest."
The jury rejected ICP's antitrust claim but ruled against Caterpillar on the contract claim.
The case is International Construction Products LLC v. Caterpillar Inc, U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, No. 1:15-cv-00108.
For ICP: William Isaacson, Amy Mauser,David Cole and Jessica Phillips ofPaul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison
For Caterpillar: Joseph Ostoyich of Clifford Chance; and Paul Cuomo and Heather Souder Choi of Baker Botts
Read more:
Deere's Wirtgen wins $12.9 mln from Caterpillar in road-construction patent trial
Freight train maker Westinghouse Air Brake sued by rival over antitrust claims
Reporting by Mike Scarcella
Related Assets
Latest News
Disclaimer: The XM Group entities provide execution-only service and access to our Online Trading Facility, permitting a person to view and/or use the content available on or via the website, is not intended to change or expand on this, nor does it change or expand on this. Such access and use are always subject to: (i) Terms and Conditions; (ii) Risk Warnings; and (iii) Full Disclaimer. Such content is therefore provided as no more than general information. Particularly, please be aware that the contents of our Online Trading Facility are neither a solicitation, nor an offer to enter any transactions on the financial markets. Trading on any financial market involves a significant level of risk to your capital.
All material published on our Online Trading Facility is intended for educational/informational purposes only, and does not contain – nor should it be considered as containing – financial, investment tax or trading advice and recommendations; or a record of our trading prices; or an offer of, or solicitation for, a transaction in any financial instruments; or unsolicited financial promotions to you.
Any third-party content, as well as content prepared by XM, such as: opinions, news, research, analyses, prices and other information or links to third-party sites contained on this website are provided on an “as-is” basis, as general market commentary, and do not constitute investment advice. To the extent that any content is construed as investment research, you must note and accept that the content was not intended to and has not been prepared in accordance with legal requirements designed to promote the independence of investment research and as such, it would be considered as marketing communication under the relevant laws and regulations. Please ensure that you have read and understood our Notification on Non-Independent Investment. Research and Risk Warning concerning the foregoing information, which can be accessed here.
