��������

• Equipment Industry Distribution & Franchise: For decades, Mike Lockerby has been recognized as a “go to lawyer” for the distribution and franchise legal needs of equipment manufacturers. He has also represented the leading industry trade association, the Association of Equipment Manufacturers (AEM), in high-profile matters. These include a successful challenge to a North Dakota equipment dealer statute — described below under “Constitutional Challenges to State Franchise and Dealer Laws” — and successful opposition to a Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Civil Investigative Demand (CID) for proprietary manufacturer data regarding the sales and market shares of AEM member companies. The CID was served in connection with an investigation and subsequent antitrust suit regarding alleged violations of the so-called “right to repair” (R2R) by manufacturers of agricultural equipment. In written and oral presentations to clients, available upon request, Mike Lockerby has been a true “thought leader” challenging the R2R’s movement to require manufacturers to provide unfettered access to their diagnostic and repair software, telematic data, and parts rather than restricting repairs to authorized repair centers certified by the manufacturer. In jurisdictions that have adopted R2R legislation, he has helped develop compliance protocols that preserve manufacturers’ intellectual property rights and do not interfere with their warranty and other authorized repair networks elsewhere. Examples of the issues that he has helped dozens of equipment manufacturers address include the litigation described below under “Dealer Portal Cybersecurity Breach Litigation,” “Volvo Construction Equipment Market Withdrawal Litigation,” “Enforcement of Dealer Agreement Exclusivity Provision,” and “Defense of Antitrust Claims Arising Out of Dealer Consolidation.”
• Alcoholic Beverages Industry Distribution & Franchise: Recent matters include disputes over U.S. distribution rights to distilled spirits and multi-year litigation in Utah state court of claims for violation of the Utah Beer Industry Distribution Act following changes in state law allowing the retail sale of full-strength beer. For more than three decades, as detailed in his , Mike has represented breweries, wineries, and distilleries (and in some cases distributors) in:
  • negotiating, drafting, and amending U.S. distribution agreements;
  • realigning U.S. distribution as a result of mergers, acquisitions, and license agreements;
  • complying with federal and state labelling, licensing, registration, “tied-house,” and other regulations;
  • resolving distribution disputes in state and federal courts, in state administrative agencies, and in arbitration in numerous U.S. jurisdictions — including Florida, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Utah, Virginia, and West Virginia; and
  • negotiating and drafting importation, trademark license, and distribution agreements with overseas suppliers in various jurisdictions — including Japan, the Dominican Republic, Puerto Rico, Belgium, the Philippines, and the United Kingdom.
• Constitutional Challenges to State Franchise and Dealer Laws: Following an evidentiary hearing in federal court in Bismarck, North Dakota, the Foley team led by Mike Lockerby secured preliminary injunctive relief against enforcement of amendments to the North Dakota farm equipment dealer statute on behalf of the Association of Equipment Manufacturers (AEM) and the four largest U.S. manufacturers of agricultural equipment. After briefing and argument of the subsequent appeal by the State of North Dakota and equipment dealer associations, the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of injunctive relief and resolved in favor of the manufacturers the merits of their Contracts Clause claim. Ass’n of Equip. Mfrs. v. Burgum, 932 F.3d 727 (8th Cir. 2019). Thereafter, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of the manufacturers on their Contracts Clause claim. Ass’n of Equip. Mfrs. v. Burgum, 495 F. Supp. 3d 803 (D.N.D. 2020). The rulings followed other challenges to state franchise and dealer laws led by Mike Lockerby, building upon his prior victories in Richmond, Virginia at the district court and appellate level on behalf of Mobil Oil Corporation in its successful constitutional challenge to the Virginia Petroleum Products Franchise Act. Mobil Oil Corp. v. Virginia Gasoline Marketers and Automotive Repair Ass’n Inc., 34 F.3d 220 (4th Cir. 1994), denied, 513 U.S. 1148 (1995).
• Dealer Portal Cybersecurity Breach Litigation: Mike Lockerby represented a forklift manufacturer in litigation alleging misappropriation of trade secrets and violation of federal and state computer crimes laws against a former dealer that was servicing a multi-state area on behalf of several competitors. For several years after its termination, the defendant obtained unauthorized access to the plaintiff’s “dealers only” secure Internet site. The site contained proprietary information about pricing, diagnostic software, and other competitively sensitive materials available only to authorized dealers. Early in the litigation, the defendant was ordered to pay the plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees plus the cost of having a computer forensic expert image and analyze computers at the dealer’s locations in Tennessee, Arkansas, Alabama, and Mississippi from which unauthorized access had been gained. NACCO Materials Handling Group, Inc. v. The Lilly Co., 278 F.R.D. 395 (W.D. Tenn. 2011).
• Other Trade Secret Misappropriation and Computer Crimes Experience: Mike Lockerby’s includes pursuing and defending claims for misappropriation of trade secrets and violations of computer crimes statutes; advising clients about trade secret protection and ensuring that they have appropriate agreements, procedures, and other safeguards; and speaking and publishing regarding the foregoing issues. Examples include:
  • Lead counsel for defendants (plaintiff’s competitor and plaintiff’s former employee hired by competitor) in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia for alleged misappropriation of trade secret source code in violation of federal Defend Trade Secrets Act.
  • Lead counsel for a U.S. intelligence agency contractor pursuing trade secret and related claims against competitor and disloyal former employees who, following a bench ruling that the plaintiff was likely to succeed on the merits, stipulated to a consent order granting the preliminary injunctive relief sought; after seven days of trial, obtained jury verdict for three times the damages sought plus an award of attorneys’ fees.
  • Represented defendant in North Carolina Business Court in Charlotte in trade secret dispute between competing Taiwanese medical device manufacturers; settled on very favorable terms for client shortly before scheduled jury trial. Case scheduled for jury trial.
  • Defended former employee in arbitration against claims of misappropriation of trade secrets based on downloading of company documents.
  • Numerous other cases in federal and state courts in Georgia, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Missouri, Tennessee, Virginia, and Washington State
• In re Pool Products Distribution Market (MDL E.D. La.): Mike Lockerby was lead counsel for Pentair, one of three “Manufacturer Defendants” in class action antitrust litigation in federal court in New Orleans. The plaintiffs in the civil litigation, which grew out of the FTC’s investigation of distribution practices in the pool products industry, sought damages in the amount of $930,081,537 (after trebling). On behalf of all three Manufacturer Defendants, he developed and executed an aggressive discovery and motions strategy to put the plaintiffs’ contingent fee class action lawyers on the defensive. On behalf of all three Manufacturer Defendants, he also briefed and argued two motions to dismiss, both of which were granted in significant part — with respect to all but one claim of a per se unlawful horizontal conspiracy. After the close of discovery, he briefed and argued motions for summary judgment motions on the remaining antitrust claims, which were granted in favor of the remaining co-defendants after Pentair settled with the plaintiffs.
• CenturyLink Access Charge Litigation: On behalf of several dozen local telecom companies owned by CenturyLink, Mike Lockerby led a team that obtained judgments against Sprint following bench trials in federal court in Richmond, Virginia and Monroe, Louisiana. These judgments — more than $23.3 million in Virginia and more than $13.7 million in Louisiana — were affirmed on appeal by the Fourth Circuit and Fifth Circuit, respectively. Both judgments required the payment of access charges for delivery to CenturyLink’s customers of telephone calls that had originated on Sprint’s telecom network in Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP). The disputes arose under interconnection agreements (ICAs) formed under the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Avoiding telecom regulatory jargon, the trial team presented the ICA dispute as a simple straightforward breach of contract claim. At both the trial and appellate level, the federal courts rejected Sprint’s arguments that ICA disputes cannot be decided by federal courts until after they have been presented to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) or state public utility commissions. The decisions confirmed that private contracts making access charges payable on traffic originating in VoIP format are enforceable regardless of how the FCC classifies such traffic. CenturyTel of Chatham, LLC v. Sprint Communs. Co. LP, 185 F. Supp. 3d 932 (W.D. La. 2016), ���ڴ�’d, 861 F.3d 566 (5th Cir. 2017), denied, 583 U.S. 1084(2018); Cent. Tel. Co. of Va. v. Sprint Communs. Co. of Va., Inc., 759 F. Supp. 2d 789 (E.D. Va. 2011), ���ڴ�’d, 715 F.3d 501 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 571 U.S. 969 (2013).
• Power Tool Industry Antitrust Litigation: Mike Lockerby defended a former manufacturer of power tools and secured its dismissal in an antitrust suit brought against all past and present manufacturers of table saws alleging collusion through a trade association, The Power Tool Institute, to boycott plaintiffs’ safety technology in violation of federal antitrust laws. SD3, LLC v. Black & Decker (U.S.), Inc., Case No. 1-14-cv-191 (E.D. Va.).
• Franchise “Future Damages” Litigation: On behalf of Meineke Car Care Centers, Mike Lockerby argued the Fourth Circuit appeal in a landmark case involving one of the most hotly contested issues in franchising: “future damages” — i.e., whether the franchisee remains liable for royalties, advertising fund contributions, and other required payments to the franchisor after premature termination of a franchise. Because franchise agreements are long-term contracts, franchisees’ potential liability for future damages can be substantial. Meineke’s home court in Charlotte, North Carolina previously held on three separate occasions that future damages are not recoverable. On appeal, the Fourth Circuit reversed, issuing a lengthy opinion that could be persuasive for franchise disputes in other jurisdictions as well. Meineke Car Care Ctrs., Inc. v. RLB Holdings, LLC, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 7809, 2011 WL 1422900 (4th Cir. Apr. 14, 2011).
• : For ten years, Mike Lockerby served as lead counsel for Volvo Construction Equipment North America, Inc. (VCENA) in dealer termination litigation in Arkansas, Connecticut, Kansas, Illinois, New Jersey, North Carolina, and Texas. Following acquisitions of other manufacturers by its European parent, VCENA ended up with significant overlaps in its North American distribution. In some cases, VCENA found itself with as many as three dealers in certain areas. Pursuant to an ongoing program known as “Volvoization,” the products of these acquired manufacturers were rebranded with the VOLVO® trademark. Meanwhile, the acquired manufacturers’ dealer networks were “rationalized” — i.e., consolidated — into one network of VOLVO® construction equipment dealers. In federal and state courts across the country, he obtained favorable results for VCENA — by dispositive motion or settlement if possible, by jury trial if necessary. The valuable precedents for manufacturers established by this litigation included a landmark Seventh Circuit decision holding that the scope of a “franchise” protected from termination without “good cause” is limited to the trademark licensed to the dealer, distributor, or franchisee.[1]
• Enforcement of Dealer Agreement Exclusivity Provision: Mike Lockerby handled the Sixth Circuit appeal of a ruling by the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee granting preliminary injunctive relief in favor of an equipment dealer that was also selling a competitor’s products. The district court based its ruling on a finding that the exclusivity provisions in YALE® forklift dealer agreements were invalid under a Tennessee statute prohibiting “coercion” of retailers not to sell competing manufacturers’ products. In subsequent Sixth Circuit briefing and oral argument, Foley cited numerous cases decided under the Auto Dealer’s Day holding that mere enforcement of an exclusivity provision is not unlawful coercion. The Sixth Circuit agreed, finding that “the mere presence of the Exclusivity Provision does not constitute coercion and that the Exclusivity Provision is not void and is enforceable.” NACCO Materials Handling Group, Inc. v. Toyota Materials Handling USA, Inc., 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 20423 (6th Cir. Aug. 22, 2007) (unpub. op.).
• Defense of Antitrust Claims Arising Out of Dealer Consolidation: Mike Lockerby defended John Deere against a $5 million antitrust claim arising out of the company’s “Dealer of Tomorrow” dealer consolidation program. The arbitration followed a ruling by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia enforcing a contractual arbitration clause while “severing” the contract’s limitation on the recovery of treble damages under the Sherman Act. James C. Justice Cos. v. Deere & Co., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24730 (S.D. W. Va. Mar. 27, 2008). After a week-long evidentiary hearing, a three-arbitrator panel found the dealer’s claims to be without merit. In the Matter of the Arbitration between RP Johnson Sons, Inc., and James C. Justice Companies, Inc. and Deere & Co. and John Deere Co., Bus. Franchise Guide (CCH) ¶ 14,343, (Mar. 26, 2010). Thereafter, the federal court in West Virginia dismissed the case in its entirety.

Awards and Recognition

• Named to BTI Consulting Group’s coveted Client Service All Star Team (2016). This honor is bestowed upon individual attorneys who deliver outstanding client service according to corporate counsel interviewed at large organizations with $1 billion or more in revenue.
• Peer Review Rated as AV Preeminent®, the highest performance rating in Martindale-Hubbell® Peer Review Ratings™.
• Rated as one of the top Franchising attorneys in the nation by Chambers USA (2008 – 2026).
• Selected by his peers for inclusion in The Best Lawyers in America© in the field of Franchise Law since 2013.
• Selected for inclusion in Washington, D.C. Super Lawyers lists for his work in business litigation, franchise/dealership, and intellectual property litigation.
• Stand-out Lawyer, Thomson Reuters (2026)

Affiliations

Leadership positions that he has held over the years include:

• Chair, Distribution & Franchise Committee, ABA Section of Antitrust Law
• Editorial Board, Franchise Law Journal, ABA Forum on Franchising
• Board of Governors, Antitrust, Franchise and Trade Regulation Section, Virginia State Bar
• Board of Governors, International Practice Section, Virginia State Bar
• Advisory Board, World Internet Law Report, World Licensing Law Report, BNA International, London

Presentations and Publications

Presentations

Mike has also presented at numerous seminars and meetings hosted by the American Bar Association and other bar associations, various trade associations, and ��������; Lardner LLP — including Foley’s nationally acclaimed Annual Law of Product Distribution & Franchise (LPDF) Seminar, which recently completed its 34^th year. His presentations include:

• “The Evolving Right to Repair Landscape,” LPDF Seminar (2025)
• “Disputes Over Customers’ Data ─ Obtaining Post-Termination Protection: The U.S. Litigation Perspective,” International Distribution Institute Conference, Prague, Czech Republic (2024)
• “The FTC’s Initiatives on Franchising, Non-Competes, the Right to Repair, and ‘Unfairness,’” LPDF Seminar (2024)
• “Implications of the Right-to-Repair Movement for Distribution, Franchise, and Supply Chain Networks, LPDF Seminar (2023)
• “Drafting Contracts to Reduce Litigation Exposure,” LPDF Seminar (2022)
• “Words Matter: Crafting Arbitration Agreements That Stick — A View from the Trenches,” Webinar (2022)
• “Is It Broke? The ‘Right to Repair’ — Implications for Product Distribution and the Supply Chain,” LPDF Seminar (2021)
• “Licensing Agreements: Maximizing Value While Mitigating Risk,” Grant Thornton LLP/ ��������; Lardner LLP Joint Seminar (2021)
• “MVDL (Motor Vehicle Dealer Law) Creep: What Manufacturers Can Do When Significant Changes Are Made,” LPDF Seminar (2020)
• “Distribution: Pricing & the ‘Middleman,” Use & Distribution of the Vaccine: Are You Prepared? Webinar (2020)
• “Surviving the Shutdown—What Every Franchisee Needs to Know,” National Franchise Association Webinar (2020)
• “To Arbitrate or Not? The Jury is Still Out,” LPDF Seminar (2019)
• “Cybersecurity: Putting the Toothpaste Back in the Tube – Best Practices for Responding to a Security Breach,” ABA Forum on Franchising (2018)
• “Brand Protection: The Foundation for a Successful Distribution or Franchise System,” LPDF Seminar (2018)
• “Ratcheting Up Standards: Improving Performance Without Busting the Litigation Budget,” LPDF Seminar (2017)
• “Mine Is Better Than Yours!—The Risks and Rewards In Conducting Comparative Advertising,” ABA Forum on Franchising (2016)
• “Comparative Advertising: Is the Past Prologue?”, LPDF Seminar (2016)
• “Judicial Remedies for Trade Secret Misappropriation and Third-Party Data Breaches,” LPDF Seminar (2015)
• “Late Breaking News: Has a State Legislature Invalidated the Terms of Your Distribution Contract?”, LPDF Seminar (2014)
• “Steering Clear of Disaster: Class Actions and System-Wide Litigation,” LPDF Seminar (2013)
• “Protection of Franchise System Trade Secrets and Confidential Information, and Enforcement of Non- Disclosure Agreements in the Digital Age,” ABA Forum on Franchising (2012)
• “Lost in Cyberspace? Best Practices for Maintaining Security on the Internet and in the Cloud,” Washington Metropolitan Area Corporate Counsel Association (2012)
• “The World Wide Web of Threats to Your Company’s Confidential Information: Lessons Learned in Trade Secret and Computer Crimes Litigation,” LPDF Seminar (May 2012)
• “Keeping Your Company’s Trade Secrets from Becoming ‘Road Kill’ on the Information Superhighway,” Original Equipment Suppliers Association Legal Corner (April 2012)
• “Lessons Learned in Privacy Litigation,” American Conference Institute’s 11th Annual Legal & Compliance Forum on Privacy & Security of Consumer and Employee Information (February 2012)
• “Trade Secret Issues in the Automotive Supply Chain,” Original Equipment Suppliers Association Regional Meeting Auto Suppliers: Strategic Issues & Industry Forecasts (November 2011)
• “The Law of Resale Price Maintenance,” LPDF Seminar (2011)
• “Survey of State Dealer Law Topics,” ABA Forum on Franchising (2010)
• “The Lesser of Two Evils? Litigation Versus Arbitration of Distribution & Franchise Disputes,” LPDF Seminar (2010)
• “Preliminary Injunctive Relief to Protect Trade Secrets and Enforce Non-Competes: Is It Possible to Put The Toothpaste Back in the Tube?,” Trade Secret & Noncompete Agreements: What You Need to Know Web Conference Series (2009)
• “Navigating Uncertainty: Patent Values and the Evolving IP Market” Webinar Series presented with Grant Thornton LLP (2009)
• “Making Lemonade Out of Lemons: How to Consolidate Distribution Without Breaking the Litigation Bank,” 18th Annual Law of Product Distribution & Franchise Seminar (2009)
• “Litigating a Claim Under the Petroleum Marketing Practices Act (PMPA),” ABA Annual Forum on Franchising (2008)
• “The ‘F’ Word: Are Your Company’s Dealers, Distributors, or Licensees Protected By Federal and State Franchise Laws?”, presented at Drive Your Business Forward: Distribution & Franchise Law Update (2008):
• “Franchising in the South Asian Community,” Fifth Annual North American South Asian Bar Association Convention (2008)
• “Lessons Learned in Litigation: Franchise Agreement Drafting,” International Franchise Association Annual Legal Symposium (2008)
• “Intellectual Property in Distribution & Franchise Agreements: A License to Fix Prices?,” LPDF Seminar (2008)
• “Discriminatory Treatment Under the PMPA, Federal Antitrust Law, and State Law,” Petroleum Marketing Attorneys’ Meeting (2008)
• “Shall We Arbitrate? The Pros and Cons of Arbitrating Franchise Disputes,” ABA Forum on Franchising (2005)
• “Judicial Update,” International Franchise Association Annual Legal Symposium (May 2005)
• “Intellectual Property Protection in Cyberspace,” Offshore e-Commerce Seminar, IBC USA Conferences, Inc. (Miami – 2000, New York City –1999)
• “Dealer Termination and Resale Price Maintenance,” Advanced Distribution Workshop: Antitrust and Advertising Issues, ABA Section of Antitrust Law (1999)
• “Challenges of the Internet for Agency, Distribution, and Franchising Agreements: Impact of New Technologies on Traditional Sales Methods,” International Bar Association, Zurich, Switzerland (1999)
• “Defining and Protecting Trade Secrets and Other Proprietary Intellectual Property,” ABA Forum on Franchising (1998)
• “Reappearance of Tying and Pricing Issues for Franchise Companies,” ABA Forum on Franchising (1992)

Publications

On behalf of the ABA Forum on Franchising, Mike Lockerby previously served as editor-in-chief of the Franchise Law Bibliography and The Trade Secret Handbook: Protecting Your Franchise System’s Competitive Advantage, and as editor of the ABA Franchise Law Journal “Franchising (& Distribution) Currents.” Currently, he is editor-in-chief of the International Agency and Distribution Agreements treatise published by Lexis-Nexis.

His many other publications include:

• “‘If It’s Not Broken, Don’t Break It’— The FTC Targets the Franchise Business Model,” (March 31, 2023)
• “Let’s Make a Deal: The American Farm Bureau Federation ‘Right-to-Repair’ Memorandum of Understanding,” (January 24, 2023)
• Co-author, “Franchising and Insolvency,” Lexology Franchise Practice Guide (4th ed.) (March 2022)
• “Leegin’s 10-Year Checkup: No Big Changes in the Marketplace,” Law360 (June 28, 2017)
• Co-author, Trade Secrets Chapter, Intellectual Property Handbook, ABA Forum on Franchising and Section of Intellectual Property Law (2d ed. 2016)
• “De-CFAA-nating Federal Law: Appeals Courts Weaken Electronic Data Use Protections,” Foley Legal News Alert: Trade Secret Noncompete Litigation (August 3, 2012)
• “Fourth Circuit Reverses U.S. District Court, Instead Allowing Franchisor to Recover ‘Future Damages’ From Terminated Franchisee,” Foley Legal News Alert: Distribution & Franchise (May 2, 2011)
• “Deconstructing Franchisee Claims for ‘Constructive’ Termination and Nonrenewal – Implications of Supreme Court Petroleum Marketing Decision for Distribution and Franchise Generally,” Foley Legal News Alert: Distribution & Franchise (March 25, 2010)
• “When Are Class Disputes Properly Submitted to Arbitration?,” Foley Legal News Alert: Litigation (April 29, 2010)
• Co-author, “Avoiding and Managing System-Wide Litigation in International Franchising,” International Journal of Franchising Law (October 20, 2010)
• “The FDA Stance on High-Fructose Corn Syrup,” Co-author, Product Liability Law360 (October 15, 2009)
• “Third Circuit Ruling Calls Into Question FDA’s Position on Whether High-Fructose Corn Syrup is ‘Natural,’” Foley Legal News Alert: Food Industry (September 2, 2009)
• “Seventh Circuit Decision in Landmark ‘Market Withdrawal’ Case Eases Burden on Manufacturers and Franchisors Seeking to Consolidate Branded Distribution Systems,” Foley Legal News Alert: Distribution & Franchise (March 27, 2009)
• “‘Fairness’ Looms In New Congress,” The National Law Journal (November 24, 2008)
• “Legislation Invalidating Arbitration Clauses in Franchise, Employment, Auto Purchase and Lease, and Consumer Agreements Makes Headway in U.S. House of Representatives,” Foley Legal News Alert: Distribution & Franchise (July 25, 2008)
• “Dealer’s Claim of Antitrust Conspiracy to Fix Minimum Resale Prices Survives Summary Judgment Notwithstanding Supreme Court’s Decision in Leegin,” Foley Legal News Alert: Distribution & Franchise (June 25, 2008)
• “Supreme Court Limits Scope of Judicial Review of Arbitration Awards,” Foley Legal News Alert: Distribution & Franchise (April 3, 2008)
• “‘Mixed Signals’ From Washington? Senators Propose Restoring Automatic Treble Damages for Manufacturers and Franchisors That Prohibit Discounting,” Foley Legal News Alert: Distribution & Franchise (December 5, 2007)
• “Arbitration Fairness Act of 2007: A Trial Lawyer’s Dream, A Client’s Nightmare,” Franchise World (November 30, 2007)
• “Franchising After Leegin: A License to Fix Prices?,” Franchise Law Journal (September 24, 2007)
• “Supreme Court Abandons Century-Old Per Se Rule Against Resale Price Maintenance,” Foley Legal News Alert: Antitrust (July 28, 2007)
• “Federal Legislation Would Invalidate Arbitration Clauses in Franchise, Consumer, and Employment Agreements,” Foley Legal News Alert: Distribution & Franchise (July 25, 2007)
• “Lessons for Intellectual Property Owners,” Foley Legal News Alert: Antitrust (August 22, 2006)
• “Lessons for Intellectual Property Owners,” IP Law360 (August 31, 2006)
• “Looking Anew at Accounting Duties,” New York Law Journal (April 2004)
• “Market Withdrawal: Judges and Juries Aren’t Buying What Terminated Dealers Are Selling,” ABA Franchise Law Journal (Winter 2003)
• “The More, the Merrier? New York Federal Court Refuses to Dismiss Replacement Dealers Named as Co-Defendants,” ABA Franchise Law Journal (Fall 2003)
• “Can Franchise Consultants Practice Law?,” ABA Franchise Law Journal (Summer 2002)
• “Revisionist History? Kicking the Tires of J. Michael Dady’s Market Withdrawal Cases,” ABA Franchise Law Journal (Spring 2002)
• “Avoiding Collisions With Franchise Laws on the Information Superhighway,” The Computer Lawyer (October 1998)
• “Franchise Termination Restrictions: A Guide for Practitioners and Policy Makers,” The Antitrust Bulletin (Winter 1985)

[1] FMS, Inc. v. Volvo Construction Equipment North America, Inc., 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 4938 (7th Cir. March 4, 2009), ����’g 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19577 (N.D. Ill. March 20, 2007). A lengthier description is set forth in Foley’s experience database under the heading “Seventh Circuit Definition of ‘Franchise’ Litigation” ().