The enthusiasm for the Fiat coming to the market has diminished. At first, it was something that would be mixed in… now [Fiat-Chrysler is] going to have to present a compelling story and product to back me investing at least $1 million to build a new showroom

Everyone loves the Fiat 500, but Chrysler’s dealers aren’t exactly thrilled that they have to build brand new showrooms to sell the Italian (er, Mexican) subcompact, as witnessed by the quote above in the WSJ [sub]. Another dealer adds that he knows enough troubled MINI and Smart stores to be spooked by the prospect of dropping hundreds of thousands of dollars on what will clearly be a niche offering. Yet another calls it an “excellent opportunity,” but Chrysler needs to find 200 qualified dealers to make Fiat’s American adventure a reality. The credit and car markets, gas prices and Fiat’s less-than-stellar American-market legacy all conspire against the scheme. To say nothing of the poor historical precedents for Chrysler’s ballooning brand portfolio. But as usual, CEO Sergio Marchionne has it all figured out…

When I had business at Volkswagen, arriving at Wache Sandkamp, I was always asked whether I have a cell phone on me. “Ja,” I said. “Does it have a camera?” “Nein,” I said. The guard didn’t want to see the phone, and I could keep it.

At Chrysler’s big dealer convention, to be held in September in Orlando, they won’t be so lenient. Dealers have already been told to leave all cell phones, video equipment and cameras in their hotel rooms. To ward off the intrusion of rogue recording equipment, metal detectors will be put up at the show’s entrance.

Well, the debate over the viability of the Chevy Volt has been well and truly joined, as political and auto writers around the web spent the last week weighing in on the issue. Needless to say, a scan of these opinions shows that my NY Times Op-Ed has drawn a wide variety of reactions, ranging from complete agreement to utter contempt. But, in a phenomenon that seems all-too common on the internet these days, very few commentaries on my opinion (positive and negative alike) bring more detail or nuance to the issue. Which is too bad, because I’d be the last person to argue that I’m capable of doing complete justice to an issue as complex as the Volt in only 900 words. The variables and unforeseeable consequences floating around the Volt’s future are so vast and varied, no writer could possibly hope to cover them all. And one such problem didn’t even emerge until the day after I wrote the Times Op-Ed: dealer markups on the Volt.

Sales numbers for the US market in July should drop today, and based on an early analyst survey, the market’s only recovered to a 12m SAAR at best. Estimates aside though, it’s beginning to look more and more like the US market for new cars is approaching a “new normal.” How so? Automotive News [sub]’s Jesse Snyder figures it’s

Because discipline is breaking out all over– at manufacturers, suppliers and dealerships.

Even Snyder’s headline captures the mood of cautious realism that’s suddenly taken hold of the auto industry: though the market appears to have moved towards 12m annual units in July, Snyder’s analysis is headlined Life at 11 million U.S. sales.

Have we scrutinized all the issues behind what they’re doing? Not really. My feeling is that a manufacturer-owned store as a business model violates the spirit of the state law here. But not a single person is complaining about it, and it’s kind of a back-burner thing for us. I imagine that if we start getting complaints from our membership, we would move it up to a front-burner thing

Tim Jackson, President of the Colorado Automobile Dealer Association tells Automotive News [sub] that Tesla’s non-franchise dealership in Colorado is not a long-term strategy, despite the company’s avowed desire to do without dealers. Well, franchised dealers, anyway (state law allows one OEM-owned dealership, and lots of EV tax breaks). Tesla admits (in its prospectus, no less) that wanting to own its own dealers will cause problems in Texas, but in the unlikely event that Tesla becomes a viable automaker, it’s easy to imagine a number of states putting up barriers to the franchise-free strategy. Especially since what we do know about Tesla’s dealer model plan is… highly irregular.

It is not at all clear that the greatly accelerated pace of the dealership closings during one of the most severe economic downturns in our nation’s history was either necessary for the sake of the companies’ economic survival or prudent for the sake of the nation’s economic recovery

Whoops! Who could have thought that the biggest political fight of the bailout era was picked over something never really needed to happen. At least, not according to the SIGTARP, the Special Inspector General for TARP, Neil Barovsky. In his latest report on the GM and Chrysler dealer cull [ full document in PDF here], Barovsky explodes a lot of the myths surrounding the move to accelerate dealer closings, and even goes so far as to assign real blame… and not to GM or Chrysler either.

With President Obama set to sign a new financial oversight bill into law on Wednesday, the New York Times has dug into the bill looking for key oversights. Because auto dealers were exempted from the bill (thanks at least in part to their mobilization by the GM/Chrysler dealer cull), auto dealer finance tactics ended up square in the NYT’s crosshairs, and paper’s Your Money blog has a rundown of three of the most heinous of these tactics: the Yo-Yo, the Markup and the Add-On.

A lot of people have little or no respect for car dealerships. In fact, on the TTAC forums, I frequently hear the word “stealership” so much, that I’m herewith petitioning the Oxford English Dictionary to officially put it in our lexicon. I recall the story of a friend on mine who had trouble with a Honda dealership in the UK. His mother bought a brand new Honda Civic and in the final month before the 3 year warranty ran out, the alternator gave up. The mother wasn’t angry that such a failing had happened, she just wanted it fixed. But the dealership had other ideas. They weren’t convinced that it was the alternator and they couldn’t look at it until next month. The mother told her son (my friend) this story and the son though it was a bit of a coincidence that the dealership couldn’t look at the car until next month, which happened to be the month that the car came out of warranty. The son bypassed the dealership and wrote a very strongly worded letter to Honda UK (It could have been “extremely worded”. In the first draft, he threatened to run over their testes with a steam roller). Strangely, a week later, the mother received a phone from the dealership saying that they could look at her car, fix whatever needed to be fixed and throw in a free service. Now that’s a story with a happy ending. Now let’s try one a bit more turbulent, and this one comes from the land of the “stealership”, the United States.

After a year of bitter battles with its dealers in the wake of a bankruptcy-era dealer cull, Chrysler is about to do the unthinkable: start a whole new dealer network to sell Fiats built in Italy by its new owner. The Detroit News reports that

existing Chrysler, Dodge, Jeep and Ram dealers will get a chance to apply to sell the Italian Fiats, but they must be able to operate separate facilities with different sales and service teams in order to win a franchise.

Fiat will return to the US by the end of this year, starting with the Mexican-built Fiat 500.

Throughout the debate on Wall Street reform, I have urged members of the Senate to fight the efforts of special interests and their lobbyists to weaken consumer protections. An amendment that the Senate will soon consider would do exactly that, undermining strong consumer protections with a special loophole for auto dealer-lenders. This amendment would carve out a special exemption for these lenders that would allow them to inflate rates, insert hidden fees into the fine print of paperwork, and include expensive add-ons that catch purchasers by surprise. This amendment guts provisions that empower consumers with clear information that allows them to make the financial decisions that work best for them and simply encourages misleading sales tactics that hurt American consumers. Unfortunately, countless families – particularly military families – have been the target of these deceptive practices.

This is what president Obama said just six weeks ago about efforts to exclude car dealership financing from consumer protection measures included in the forthcoming Financial Reform bill. With that bill moving towards Obama’s desk, all that stands in the way of its passage are angry dealers who don’t want to be subject to oversight. And despite the tough talk about standing up to financial interests to pass this reform, it seems Obama has caved to America’s auto dealers.

Thanks to congressional arbitration, GM’s dealer cull has been steadily downsized since The General made the decision to axe nearly 2,000 dealers during last year’s bankruptcy. Going into bankruptcy, GM had about 6,000 dealers nationwide, and it culled nearly 2,00 of them in an attempt to lean out its distribution channels. But now the Detroit News reports that GM’s North American boss Mark Reuss has said that about half of those culled dealers will have been reinstated by this July, bringing GM’s dealer count back to the 5,000 ballpark.

Chrysler is doing better than GM. At least when it comes to winning arbitration cases brought by culled dealers. GM lost both cases brought against them. Chrysler bats much better.

President Obama has weighed in on a crucial matter facing legislators attempting to overhaul America’s financial system: whether or not auto dealer finance should be subject to regulation by the new Consumer Protection Agency. Unsurprisingly, he has come down on the side of regulation, specifically echoing concerns voiced earlier by the Pentagon. The National Automobile Dealers Association has vowed to fight attempts to regulate dealer finance.

Statement by President Obama on Financial Reform
Throughout the debate on Wall Street reform, I have urged members of the Senate to fight the efforts of special interests and their lobbyists to weaken consumer protections. An amendment that the Senate will soon consider would do exactly that, undermining strong consumer protections with a special loophole for auto dealer-lenders. This amendment would carve out a special exemption for these lenders that would allow them to inflate rates, insert hidden fees into the fine print of paperwork, and include expensive add-ons that catch purchasers by surprise. This amendment guts provisions that empower consumers with clear information that allows them to make the financial decisions that work best for them and simply encourages misleading sales tactics that hurt American consumers. Unfortunately, countless families – particularly military families – have been the target of these deceptive practices.

Ever since the late 90s, car manufacturers and especially car dealers were scared of the Internet. By the end of the 90s, it was agreed that the likes of Carpoint or Autobytel would turn into huge virtual showrooms and would put dealers out of business. It didn’t happen. The opposite happened. The many car shopping sites drove business to dealers. Ten years later, there it is again: The specter of the wicked disintermediation has returned. Direct sales to customers via electronic media are popping up in the world’s largest auto market.

To say that Chrysler’s 25 percent year-over-year sales increase last month came as a surprise would be pushing the boundaries of overstatement. Chrysler’s sales and market share have been in decline for a long time, but over the past several years, the tailspin seemed to have become terminal. So, how did the Pentastar (barely) make its 95k minimum volume level and increase sales by 25 percent over April 2009? Fleet sales, for one thing: according to The Freep, TrueCar.com estimates that a full 40 percent of Chrysler’s April sales went to fleet customers.No wonder made a big deal about publicly finding Jesus on the fleet sales issue… at the end of the month (to say nothing of the conspicuous absence of retail sales numbers in its April report and massive increase in Sebring sales). And the bad news doesn’t end there. Not only did Chrysler top all automakers in per-vehicle incentives last month according to Edmunds’ monthly True Cost Of Incentives index with $3,374 on the average Mopar’s hood, they’re actually increasing incentives even further.

The Denver Business Journal reports that the Colorado Senate has approved fines of $10,000-$25,000 per day for any automaker that does not comply with its law (HB-1049) requiring reinstatement or compensation of culled dealers. That law was passed earlier this year, drawing a $60,000 vote-no lobbying effort from GM. It also gives culled dealers the right of first refusal for new franchises opened within five miles of their shut dealership within five years, and states that if a franchise has been re-awarded, the culled dealer can demand the return of his franchise. According to the DBJ:

Three terminated Chrysler dealers requested their re-awarded franchises back after the law was signed and said they were told by the company that it had no intentions of complying with it. Chrysler then filed a federal lawsuit on April 23 against Colorado, claiming the new law contradicted terms laid out in Chrysler’s bankruptcy agreement and violates the contract clauses in the state and federal constitutions.

Back in February, we took note of Chrysler’s “principled” stand on new-product secrecy, concluding:

Let’s face it: Chrysler needs buzz, hype, awareness, some kind of excitement surrounding its future generally and its forthcoming products in specific (if only in the irritating “teaser” format) almost as much as it needs anything else. Because as things stand right now,the baseline perception of Chrysler is of a dying company with nothing to offer. In this light, Chrysler’s principled rejection of hype is far more likely to be interpreted as keeping rushed semi-refreshes under wraps so they won’t be mocked to death by the time they go on sale. If that’s not the case, Chrysler has nothing to lose and everything to gain by building consumer awareness of new products. If it is, well, the truth will out sooner or later.

And apparently we’re not the only ones who think so. In fact, if the Detroit News is to be believed, literally everyone seems to think that Chrysler needs to start being more open, not only about its forthcoming products, but at every level of its business.

The Treasury may be standing by GM’s “payback” claims, but the Congress hasn’t exactly been looking for ways to do the auto industry any favors. In fact, a toxic brew of political fallout from the financial crisis, auto bailout, and Toyota recall scandal has seems to have inspired a backlash against the industry that came to a head this week in the US Senate. Legislation has been introduced that would prevent NHTSA officials from taking jobs with automakers for up to three years after they leave the agency, and yet more is being drafted which could require a vast array of standard safety equipment on all cars sold in the US and could even add a federal fee to new car sales. Adding insult to injury, a much-hoped for exception to dealer financing oversight in the new financial reform bill appears to have fallen victim to Senate negotiations. Did nobody tell the old guys that they’re investors in the auto industry?

Automotive News [sub] reports that 19 rejected Canadian GM dealers have been given the green light to sue GM as a class, rather than go through the arbitration process that is being used to resolve dealer cull disputes in the US. The dealers are suing GM for breach of their dealer agreements, and for failing to provide compensation beyond wind-down costs. They argue that the arbitration process would be expensive for dealers, non-transparent to the taxpayers who funded GM’s reorganization, and would put GM at an unfair advantage.

Ever since a debt crisis toppled the already-precarious auto sector into undeniable crisis there’s been a running debate about when US car sales would “return to normal.” By now though, even the most ardent bulls seem to have accepted that 2007’s 16m number will be out of reach for at least several more years. So, how will we know when we’ve hit the new normal? According to Edmunds, at least one statistic roared back to 2006 levels last month: the percentage of sales financed at zero percent.

In March, more than 22 percent of financed new cars were purchased with zero-percent finance deals. Last March the total was just 13 percent. The prior high was 21 percent in July 2006.

Chrysler’s awkward, year-long fandango with unwanted dealers is poignantly encapsulated in a strange little anecdote hidden in the back of today’s Automotive News [sub]. Headlined, “Rejected-store worker’s chat with Sergio was just smoke,” the piece told of a chance encounter several weeks ago between Fiat/Chrysler CEO Sergio Marchionne and culled dealer Jim Casper, while enjoying a smoke at a seafood restaurant bar.

“Are you a rejected dealer?” Marchionne asked [after Casper introduced himself].

“I work for a rejected dealer,” Casper replied.

“Do you know why you were rejected?” the CEO asked.

“To be honest, sir, we have absolutely no idea,” Casper said.

Now why would Sergio guess that Casper was with a “rejected dealer,” a term used by dealers protesting Chrysler on Youtube? It could have been awkward if Casper were just a good soldier looking for a pat on the back from his CEO. Actually, on second though, it couldn’t have been any more awkward than what (apparently) actually happened.

Funny or Die’s Presidential Reunion from Will Ferrell

Remember when we reported that the cash cow known as in-house dealer finance wouldn’t be covered by the Consumer Financial Protection Act, currently making its way through congressional committees? That version of the bill passed the House Financial Services Committee (with some questionable support), but now Automotive News [sub] reports that the Senate Banking Committee has passed its own version which does make dealer finance subject to regulation by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The Senate version would also make the CFPB an office of the Federal Reserve, rather than a stand-alone agency. So, should an agency set up to prevent another financial crisis extend regulation to dealer finance operations? Dealers aren’t happy about the idea, but traditional consumer advocates aren’t the only ones saying yes…

The biggest storyline right now for America’s bailed-out automakers is how little they’ve been able to capitalize on Toyota’s stumbles. While Ford and Hyundai made hefty sales gains last month, both GM and Chrysler’s performances were distinctly unimproved by Toyota’s woes. And now that Toyota is launching major incentive packages to recover lost sales momentum, Detroit has no remaining incentive to not revert to the bad old practices of incentive dependence. With GM and Ford diving into the zero-percent war, Global Insight’s George Magliano tells Automotive News [sub]:

Incentives are going to be here into the third quarter. We’re not going to wean consumers off incentives any time soon. We’re stuck with it. They’re all jockeying for position… After clunkers everybody backed off incentives. Now they’re going to the whip again

GM earned some goodwill with dealers in recent weeks by reinstating over 600 dealers, most of them rural Cadillac stores. But as always, as soon as one grating issue in GM’s relations with its dealers is resolved, another one appears. Automotive News [sub] reports that GM is seeking five- and six-figure sums from what it terms “a very small” number of dealers who allegedly violated the terms of its Standards for Excellence Incentive program. This might be a relatively normal occurrence, if it weren’t made more complicated by GM’s recent bankruptcy. Because GM audited its dealers before bankruptcy, but didn’t act on the information until now, GM says that its penalties aren’t debatable, and that the normal audit process will not be available to dealers receiving the bills.

It’s a little-known fact that nearly half of the 2,000 or so dealer franchises that GM began winding down during bankruptcy were Cadillac stores, most of them located in rural areas. The General’s plan was to focus Cadillac’s dealer network on standalone stores in major metropolitan areas, following the strategies of more premium luxury competitors like BMW and Lexus. But having marked 922 largely small-town Caddy dealers for death, GM saw 2009 sales of its luxury brand fall 15 percent, or twice the rate of Buick and Chevrolet in the same period. The lesson: small-town Cadillac dealers (like attempts to sell the brand in Europe) are worthwhile after all. Automotive News [sub] reports, the majority of those dealers being reinstated are small-town Cadillac dealers. Will Cadillac’s brand integrity suffer by having to serve the small-town American market as well as competing with the European brands? Probably, but at least Caddy dealers can take heart knowing that things could still be worse: they could be Lincoln-Mercury dealers.

GM’s recent reinstatement of 661 culled dealers has put pressure back on Chrysler to come to arrangement with the dealers it shed during last year’s bankruptcy and bailout. Rep. Chris VanHollen, the sixth ranking Democrat in the House or Representatives, tells Automotive News [sub] that with GM buckling to dealer pressure, the time has come for Chrysler to follow suit. “There’s no quicker or easier way to build this network than to reinstate its terminated car dealerships,” says VanHollen, who drafted much of congress’s dealer arbitration legislation. The Committee to Restore Dealer Rights contacted Chrysler CEO Sergio Marchionne “to discuss the reinstatement of the rejected dealers who had their franchises so abruptly taken and were unfairly terminated.” The response?

We believe that all communications concerning the subject matter of the arbitration should be between counsel and request that your clients follow this procedure in the future. Please ask them not to send such communications to Mr. Marchionne or any other Chrysler personnel.

Oh snap! Chrysler isn’t going down without a fight… even if that means taking on the representatives who have oversight of the government’s eight percent stake in the automaker.

Among the many unanswered questions as to what Prius owner James Sikes actually did or didn’t do to try to bring his runaway car to a stop, one claim of his definitely smells. He says he received a recall letter from Toyota, and when he took it in to the dealer, he was told his car was not on the recall lists. Ouch!

Apparently eager to avoid uncertainties of the Congressional-mandated arbitration, GM announced that 661 of its 1,160 terminated dealers that sought arbitration would be back in business pronto. Automotive News quotes GM North America President Mark Reuss: We are eager to restore relationships with our dealers, and get back to doing what we do best — selling cars and taking care of customers,” “The arbitration process creates uncertainty in the market. We believe issuing these Letters of Intent is good for our customers, our dealers and GM.”

Chrysler’s troubled relations with its dealers took another turn for the nasty this week, as culled dealers teamed up with lawmakers to criticize Chrysler’s decision to open new dealerships near the sites of several culled dealers. As with GM’s dealer struggles, this latest controversy centers around Colorado, where culled dealers are protesting Chrysler’s behavior in the Denver Post. Culled dealers have seen franchises in their former areas awarded to chains like AutoNation before congressionally-mandated arbitration had even given them the opportunity to contest their culling during last year’s bankruptcy proceedings. “This is not right,” said one dealer. “We specifically asked (Chrysler) not to redistribute the franchise before our arbitration.”

Chrysler once again topped Edmunds’ True Cost Of Incentive index last month, despite failing to significantly improve its sales over February 2009’s miserable showing. The only upside is that Chrysler basically held even with reduced incentives, as the entire industry is spending about 14 percent less on incentives than it did a year ago. Another interesting point of analysis from Edmunds:

Comparing all brands, in February smart spent the least, $341 followed by Scion at $426 per vehicle sold. At the other end of the spectrum, Lincoln spent the most, $5,568, followed by HUMMER at $5,195 per vehicle sold. Relative to their vehicle prices, Saturn and HUMMER spent the most, 14.9 percent and 13.6 percent of sticker price, respectively; while Porsche spent 1.4 and smart spent 2.3 percent.

But Toyota and GM will help carry those numbers up next month, with huge incentive spends planned. Meanwhile, after many automakers found religion about retail sales last year, fleet sales are back in a big way. And they’re no longer seen as something to be ashamed of.

Chrysler’s long-disfunctional “Five Star Dealer” program may be on its way out, reports Automotive News [sub], as a new Fiat-created dealer rewards program rolls out to a Chrysler dealer body that’s fighting for survival. The new program, which may still be merged with Five Star, addresses several longstanding dealer complaints about Five Star, perhaps the most important of which is third-party verification [to be done by the Swiss audit firm SGS Group]. Given the deep mistrust that exists between Chrysler dealers and the mothership, bringing in outside auditors to perform certification was probably a prerequisite (and brings the Chrysler program in line with Ford’s practice of independent dealer rewards program auditing). But the biggest change also helps explain why Chrysler employees will no longer judge dealerships: instead of a mere star rating system, now there’s money at stake.

Not many in Colorado, according to the Colorado Springs Gazette, which reports that the Motor Trend Certified Advantage [yes, really] network is joining Sears in mopping up culled dealers. What GM’s pump-em-up video leaves out: the fine print explaining how the new-look dealership renovations will be paid for.

The Colorado House’s passage of HB-1049 [ PDF here], a bill requiring restitution for dealers culled during the Chrysler and GM bankruptcies, has drawn a $60,000 “no” campaign from General Motors. The Denver Post reports that GM’s ad campaign, which features lines like “we must keep driving forward to repay our government loans,” and “don’t let special interests stick taxpayers in reverse,” has riled up local lawmakers more than ever, drawing such timeless put-downs as: “they must be spending tax dollars on Botox to say that with a straight face.” The bill would require OEMs compensate culled dealers for signs, parts, dealer upgrades and more, as well as offer them the right of first refusal for any new area dealerships.

It’s not a question that should leave many folks on the fence, but apparently there are at least a few Detroit-area journalists who might be willing to consider the career change. “Dealers optimistic about Chrysler’s future” proclaims the Detroit News headline from NADA’s annual convention. A more accurate headline (such as USAToday‘s “Chrysler dealers face new-model drought”) probably should have included the term “punch-drunk” to better explain this unexpectedly sunny outlook. One grizzled ChryCo dealer sums up the mood with aplomb:

We’re the toughest fighters. We’ve always been 3 or 4 (in the marketplace). We’ve never been spoon-fed. We have to fight for every piece of ground… There’s light at the end of the tunnel; I just don’t like the length of the tunnel.

Having recently posted a nearly $5b loss, bailed-out auto finance giant GMAC says it needs more help from automakers to remain competitive. Automotive News [sub] reports that GMAC CEO Mike Carpenter told reporters that “the success of GMAC Financial Services hinges on more loan and lease subsidies from General Motors Co. and Chrysler Group,” and that “GMAC requires additional marketing funds from the automakers to provide competitive loans and leases to the GM and Chrysler dealer networks.” GMAC’s Chrysler business has nearly doubled in the last quarter of 2009, now providing about 26 percent of Chrysler’s retail financing and about 30 percent of GM’s.

Toyota’s PR efforts have been competent if muted during the ongoing recall scandal. Though it could certainly have done more in the past weeks (specifically by making top leadership more available to the public) Toyota has carefully avoided overreacting to the mushrooming media frenzy. Until now. The NYT’s Wheels Blog reports that the 173 Toyota dealers who make up Toyota Southeast have pulled regional ads from ABC stations because of “excessive stories on the Toyota issues.” Toyota Southeast’s ad agency 22Squared says “We have counseled the client on the pros and cons of this, and ultimately it was their decision to make.” Toyota continues to run corporate ads on ABC, but the petulant backlash from its Southeast dealers can’t help but reflect poorly on the brand. Any PR pro will tell you (and presumably 22Squared counseled its clients of this), that these kinds of strong-arm tactics do nothing to improve public perceptions of a brand. Toyota dealers might feel that the parent company is not doing enough on the PR front, but this approach will only create the need for more PR in the future.

GM’s newly-permanent Chairman/CEO Ed Whitacre balked visibly when asked following his self-coronation if the dealer cull arbitration process would hurt GM’s chances of success this year. “I’m not sure it will weaken us,” was his half-hearted response. Whitacre’s hesitation was a bit of a surprise, considering that GM is taking a far more tolerant attitude to the arbitration process than Chrysler. But, as Automotive News [sub] reveals, GM’s downsizing was highly focused on its Cadillac brand, and if arbitration results in widespread reinstatement, Cadillac could find itself stuck with a number of small-town dealers it doesn’t want.

The Globe and Mail reports that Toronto-based Trillium Motor World has filed a $750m class action suit on behalf of 215 culled Canadian GM dealers. The suit names General Motors and, in an interesting twist, its law firm Cassels Brock & Blackwell LLP. According to a suit’s statement of claim, Cassels Brock was representing Canada’s federal government in bailout talks with GM at the same time as it was representing the Canadian Automobile Dealers Association, a relationship it never disclosed to the dealers. Conflict of interest much?

Even with a government-mandated arbitration process in place, the battle between Chrysler and its 789 culled dealers is a low-down, dirty dogfight. Last week, Chrysler sent out letters to all of its rejected dealers, in its attempt to comply with the arbitration law’s disclosure requirements. But, dealers tell Automotive News [sub], those letters are justifications, but not explanations. Absent concrete evidence for why their franchises were closed (something GM has provided to its culled dealers), lawyers for some 65 rejected dealers are fighting back.

The prospect of US launches by Chinese and Indian auto brands like Tata and BYD have at least one of the established US-market players in a paranoid froth. Honda VP John Mendel revealed a few of the nightmare scenarios that keep him up at night to USA Today [UPDATE: more on Mendel’s fears at Automotive News [sub]]. One, inspired by BYD’s plans for a 2010 US launch without a distribution channel in place, is that newcomers could skip the dealer model altogether. Mendel worries that “warehouse stores or electronics stores” ( sound familiar?) could be used to cut dealers out of the loop, “blowing up” business-as-usual for US distribution strategy.

GM has a tough row to hoe in 2010, with the launches of key products like the Cruze and Volt going on sale, an IPO to worry about, and a sales slide (down 30 percent for 2009) to reverse. Still, according to GM’s new North American boss Mark Reuss, navigating the congressionally-mandated dealer arbitration is the top challenge of the coming year. At a speech last night, Reuss told reporters from Automotive News [sub] that:

I welcome this as an opportunity for GM and the dealership network to go through a change in our network with integrity,

As opposed to the arbitrary bankruptcy-era dealer cull?

GM’s CEO and Chairman Whitacre gave Automotive News [sub] some choice nuggets of quote today. Addressing almost everything except his firm’s stagnant sales, Whitacre took on some of GM’s most staggering challenges in the most… folksy tone imaginable. Mr Whitacre, your explanation of GM’s bankruptcy dealer cull if you please:

The way it came out, if you fell above or below a line, you were removed. But you had to do it that way. You can’t just go around flipping coins, so you had to have a process.

Ok, take a minute to wrestle with that one. Then hit the jump.

When CEO Chung Mong-Koo told his employees to make Hyundai’s quality world class, their competitors all had a collective laugh. Well, we all know how that ended, so when Chung told his employee to increase sales, the competition should probably heed his words as a warning. The Korea Times reports that Chung Mong-Koo wants the Hyundai-Kia group to increase sales by 17% in 2010, from 4.63 million (2009) to 5.4 million. “Our teamwork helped turn a crisis into an opportunity when the global auto industry was at its darkest,” said Chung Mong-Koo. “Based on our achievements last year, let’s work together to make 2010 a year of writing a new history.” Analysts like Sohn Myung-woo of Woori Investment & Securities sees the goal as achievable, saying “Hyundai will continue its sales momentum in the U.S. and emerging markets such as China and India.” But besides expanding volume, Hyundai wants to use its momentum to continually improve its brand image in mature markets like the US. To that end, it’s paying more attention to how it markets its Genesis luxury semi-sub-brand.

You’d have to be a fairly trusting GM dealer to participate in what The General calls its Essential Brand Elements program. After all, it’s just the kind of dealership re-branding exercise that HUMMER dealers were forced into shortly before the brand was consigned to the ash heap of history. And once again, GM is asking dealers to create ideal showcases for its brands while keeping compensation for the renovations on a highly trust-dependent basis. GM wants brand-specific dealership rebrandings complete within three years, but will only pay for them over the next five to ten years reports Automotive News [sub]. And the payments won’t be fixed either, but will rather be tied to the dealer’s annual vehicle shipments using “a seasonally adjusted formula that takes into account the price of the vehicles sold.” According to Chevy’s Sales Manager Kurt McNeil, those payments could “conceivably” cover the recommended changes over the ten-year period. Are you feeling the trust yet?

Here’s a question: You want to do something, but it’s against the law, what do you do? Abandon the idea? No, if you’re Chrysler you sue the government. Detroit News reports that Chrysler LLC are suing officials from Oregon, Maine, North Carolina and Illnois for laws which “unduly burden New Chrysler with the obligation to provide the rejected dealers with rights that this court determined that the rejected dealers do not have,” as lawyers for Chrysler wrote.

According to Reuters, GM has sent a letter to its dealers offering $7,000 for every new Saturn or Pontiac they can move to a rental or service fleet between now and January 4. The plan would essentially make dealers the first buyer of the remaining Pontiacs and Saturns, which would then be operated as fleet vehicles or be sold as low-mileage used cars. In any case, the single objective is clear: get those dead brands off the books at all costs. With 7,900 vehicles left at Pontiac as of the 14th of December and upward of 5,000 left at Saturn as of the beginning of the month, the cost to GM could easily approach $100m. But as they say in the advertisements, their loss is your gain…. as long as you’re interested in one of the G6s or Auras that dominate the dead-brand straggler inventory. Where’s Oprah when you need her?

If you haven’t been following the drama surrounding the effort to restore dealers culled during GM and Chrysler’s bankruptcy, you might need to be brought up to speed. In essence both the cut dealers and the automakers have agreed to send create an arbitration process by which dealers could have the decision to cut their franchise reviewed by a neutral third party. The remaining conflict is over the criteria arbitrators should use to judge dealer viability, as the GM and Chrysler proposition would have forced arbitrators to use the same criteria GM and Chrysler did in the initial cuts. That would obviously have yielded the same results as the initial cull, so the dealers pushed for a set of criteria that is more favorable to their interests. Automotive News [sub] reports that a compromise has been reached in conference committee that would allow dealers to present “any relevant information” to make their case. That bill is now been approved by the House [sub] and is headed to the Senate, where its passage is “virtually assured.” But despite having all but guaranteed an independent review, culled dealers still aren’t happy.

It’s officially unanimous: literally everyone thinks the new Jeep, Dodge and Chrysler ads from Sergio Marchionne’s brain trust are crap. Sure, you knew that TTAC doesn’t think much of the spots, but were you aware that Chrysler’s dealer council has requested that Chrysler stop showing the ads? Sadly, Bloomberg only quotes one dealer on the plea, who explains that

it is a little difficult for us to understand because it is far different from what we were used to seeing. The message to us is that it is branding, branding, branding, and maybe that will work.