Automobile Dealer Economic Rights Restoration Act of 2009

Robert Farago
by Robert Farago

HR 2743 IH

111th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. R. 2743

To restore the economic rights of automobile dealers, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

June 8, 2009

Mr. MAFFEI (for himself, Mr. KRATOVIL, Mr. VAN HOLLEN, Mr. HOYER, Mr. MCMAHON, Ms. SUTTON, Mr. BARTLETT, Mr. HALL of New York, Mr. POSEY, Mr. HEINRICH, Mr. PAULSEN, Ms. SHEA-PORTER, Mr. MANZULLO, Mr. DEFAZIO, and Mr. DAVIS of Alabama) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Financial Services

A BILL

To restore the economic rights of automobile dealers, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ‘Automobile Dealer Economic Rights Restoration Act of 2009’.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

The Congress finds the following:

(1) Automobile dealers are an asset to automobile manufacturers that make it possible to serve communities and sell automobiles nationally.

(2) Forcing the closure of automobile dealers would have an especially devastating economic impact in rural communities, where dealers play an integral role in the community, provide essential services and serve as a critical economic engine.

(3) The manufacturers obtain the benefits from having a national dealer network at no material cost to the manufacturers.

(4) Historically, automobile dealers have had franchise agreement protections under State law.

SEC. 3. RESTORATION OF ECONOMIC RIGHTS.

(a) In order to protect assets of the Federal Government and better assure the viability of automobile manufacturers in which the Federal Government has an ownership interest, or to which it is a lender, an automobile manufacturer in which the Federal Government has an ownership interest, or which receives loans from the Federal Government, may not deprive an automobile dealer of its economic rights and shall honor those rights as they existed, for Chrysler LLC dealers, prior to the commencement of the bankruptcy case by Chrysler LLC on April 30, 2009, and for General Motors Corp. dealers, prior to the commencement of the bankruptcy case by General Motors Corp. on June 1, 2009, including the dealer’s rights to recourse under State law.

(b) In order to preserve economic rights pursuant to subsection (a), at the request of an automobile dealer, an automobile manufacturer covered under this Act shall restore the franchise agreement between that automobile dealer and Chrysler LLC or General Motors Corp. that was in effect prior to the commencement of their respective bankruptcy cases and take assignment of such agreements.

(c) Except as set forth herein, nothing in this Act is intended to make null and void:

(1) the court approved transfer of substantially all the assets of Chrysler LLC to New CarCo Acquisition LLC; or

(2) a transfer of substantially all the assets of General Motors Corp. that could be approved by a court after the date of introduction of this Act.


Robert Farago
Robert Farago

More by Robert Farago

Comments
Join the conversation
2 of 14 comments
  • Smithrobjr Smithrobjr on Jun 20, 2009

    Newsflash...miliatary bases are branches of the government, that cost money of the government. Car dealers are NOT OWNED by the factory. Dealers own the land, buildings, etc. They sell a product offered by a manufacturer. So what if they want to offer Dell & HP???? That's what this really is. Manufacturers don't want customers to shop and compare, they want dependent dealers, on one product, consumers be damned. Customers deserve better. My new favorite is Fritz Henderson telling congress they will save money when they don't have to pay for the prep of cars, or the gas fill up...huh? The prep is paid to the dealer by the manufacturer because 50 years ago Congress said that cars HAD to be prepped to make sure they were safe...it does with the CAR! Same with the gas, who sells is doesn't matter, it goes with the car.

  • DealerEmployeeNJ DealerEmployeeNJ on Jun 23, 2009

    Its a shame that some people who commented on here really have NO IDEA what Dealers mean to their communities. We are NOT owned by GM. Our Building, Land, Taxes, etc. are OWNED and PAID by the Dealer... that same dealer provides anywhere from 30-100 jobs in that community in which he/she resides. Take EACH Dealer that just GM is closing down: That is 2400 Dealers in the USA. Lets say for estimate purposes that each dealer employees 20 people in that town. That is 72,000 jobs LOST in AMERICA. Last time I checked, this was America. We need to support our local communites and KEEP jobs in America, not throw people out on their asses. The estimated proposed job loss for Chrysler & GM is approx 200,000 jobs LOST... this does not include the small businesses which these dealers support such as parts stores and local repair shops that we sell parts to. Most dealers being shut down have been family owned and operated for over 30 years... 50 years... some as long as 94 years! These are families with long time employees. IF this bill HR2473 is passed AND the Companion bill S1304 is passed, it will restore the rights of these dealers so that they can fend for themselves and SAVE their employees jobs. www.hometownautodealers.org This website was formed by the: Committee to Preserve Dealer Rights. You can check out that website to find out how to contact your local Senators and Congressmen/Congresswomen to tell them that you support this bill. It would be an absolute SHAME that people in AMERICA would not support the potential to save HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF JOBS...

  • ToolGuy First picture: I realize that opinions vary on the height of modern trucks, but that entry door on the building is 80 inches tall and hits just below the headlights. Does anyone really believe this is reasonable?Second picture: I do not believe that is a good parking spot to be able to access the bed storage. More specifically, how do you plan to unload topsoil with the truck parked like that? Maybe you kids are taller than me.
  • ToolGuy The other day I attempted to check the engine oil in one of my old embarrassing vehicles and I guess the red shop towel I used wasn't genuine Snap-on (lots of counterfeits floating around) plus my driveway isn't completely level and long story short, the engine seized 3 minutes later.No more used cars for me, and nothing but dealer service from here on in (the journalists were right).
  • Doughboy Wow, Merc knocks it out of the park with their naming convention… again. /s
  • Doughboy I’ve seen car bras before, but never car beards. ZZ Top would be proud.
  • Bkojote Allright, actual person who knows trucks here, the article gets it a bit wrong.First off, the Maverick is not at all comparable to a Tacoma just because they're both Hybrids. Or lemme be blunt, the butch-est non-hybrid Maverick Tremor is suitable for 2/10 difficulty trails, a Trailhunter is for about 5/10 or maybe 6/10, just about the upper end of any stock vehicle you're buying from the factory. Aside from a Sasquatch Bronco or Rubicon Jeep Wrangler you're looking at something you're towing back if you want more capability (or perhaps something you /wish/ you were towing back.)Now, where the real world difference should play out is on the trail, where a lot of low speed crawling usually saps efficiency, especially when loaded to the gills. Real world MPG from a 4Runner is about 12-13mpg, So if this loaded-with-overlander-catalog Trailhunter is still pulling in the 20's - or even 18-19, that's a massive improvement.
Next