in the united states district court for the - Hoosier Racing Tire
in the united states district court for the - Hoosier Racing Tire
in the united states district court for the - Hoosier Racing Tire
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
Case 2:07-cv-01294-TFM Document 263 Filed 09/15/2009 Page 12 of 34<br />
sanction<strong>in</strong>g body may decide to seek lower or no po<strong>in</strong>t funds and <strong>in</strong>stead request a less<br />
expensive tire.<br />
If a sanction<strong>in</strong>g body is satisfied with its current tire supplier, it may elect to stay<br />
with that supplier ra<strong>the</strong>r than solicit bids from o<strong>the</strong>r suppliers. O<strong>the</strong>r tire suppliers are<br />
generally aware that a contract exists and could seek to compete <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> bus<strong>in</strong>ess if <strong>the</strong>y wanted<br />
it. <strong>Tire</strong> suppliers can and do take sanction<strong>in</strong>g body bus<strong>in</strong>ess away from one ano<strong>the</strong>r.<br />
STA argues that <strong>Hoosier</strong>’s exclusive s<strong>in</strong>gle tire contracts <strong>for</strong>eclose competition <strong>in</strong><br />
dirt oval track races.<br />
STA distributors also bid on exclusive contracts and offer money <strong>in</strong> exchange <strong>for</strong> a<br />
rule which would require drivers to use an American Racer tire. Even after <strong>the</strong> fil<strong>in</strong>g of this<br />
lawsuit, STA’s distributors have cont<strong>in</strong>ued to bid on exclusive tire supplier contracts. For<br />
example, Lias <strong>Tire</strong>, a STA distributor, has an exclusive agreement with URC, a sanction<strong>in</strong>g<br />
company, which requires <strong>the</strong> use of American Racer tires. Lias <strong>Tire</strong> agreed to pay URC<br />
$14,500 to be <strong>the</strong> s<strong>in</strong>gle tire at approximately thirty (30) events. STA admits that it has not<br />
told its distributors to stop mak<strong>in</strong>g such exclusive deals or to refra<strong>in</strong> from giv<strong>in</strong>g promotional<br />
money <strong>in</strong> exchange <strong>for</strong> exclusivity.<br />
<strong>Hoosier</strong> has identified over seventy (70) exclusive contracts that it or its distributors<br />
have entered <strong>in</strong>to with sanction<strong>in</strong>g companies s<strong>in</strong>ce 2003. However, <strong>in</strong> this litigation, STA<br />
focuses primarily on five (5) sanction<strong>in</strong>g bodies that have chosen to have a s<strong>in</strong>gle tire rule and<br />
have selected <strong>Hoosier</strong> over STA, to wit: International Motor Contest Association (“IMCA”),<br />
12