MQVP® prevails for now, but case far from over

ST. LOUIS--There is some confusion surrounding the Mid-State vs. MQVP®
decision as rendered by a three judge panel for the Eighth Circuit of the
United States Court of Appeals on October 19th and which found for MQVP.
While MQVP is trumpeting the October 19th decision as “landmark,” sources
close to the plaintiff’s position stated, “It is no such thing.

The only thing the Appeals Court, which consisted of Chief Judge James B.
Loken, Senior Judge John R. Gibson and Judge Steven M. Colloton, did was
remand the case back to the District Court for additional action.

Keep in mind that this case never reached a trial phase. The Arkansas
judge, J. Leon Holmes, issued a summary judgment in favor of Mid-State. And,
it was that judgment which MQVP contested.

Now, it appears the case will go to its next step. Because there were
enough facts in dispute, the Appellate Court felt that the case would be
better tried by a jury than on summary judgment.

Mid-State attorneys have taken issue with the finding by the Federal
court of a “chaotic record.”

They point out that the case was painstakingly documented as thoroughly
as possible, backed by reams of exhibits, testimony and depositions
supporting their contention that independent distributors had equal access
to the very products which constituted the basis of the MQVP lines.

In rendering their opinion, the Court stated that certain facts were
disputed, thus making the ultimate decision one that a jury, after a trial
on the merits, should decide.

In the 6-page decision, it was written, “The deception (referring to the
practiced of telling customers that the parts produced by MQVP-designated
manufacturers were in inventory), if successful would discourage competing
vendors from paying MQVP to participate in the full program, thereby
destroying the market for the very basket of services the MQVP® mark was
intended to protect.” What it really all means is that for both
parties, it’s back to the drawing boards.

Ironically, regardless of the opinion and the reversal of the lower court
decision, this was definitely a legal victory for MQVP since it places the
case back on the trial docket for ultimate resolution by a jury.

Yet, there may be another wrinkle to all of this. And that is a decision
possibly should not have been rendered at all.

The reason: the decision came two months after MQVP Inc. had filed for
bankruptcy, seeking court protection.

It is the responsibility of the party undergoing bankruptcy proceedings
to notify all parties including those of the court.

Had that happened, the 8th District Court’s decision may have been
stayed. A bankruptcy stops all action for and against a claimant company.
Now, this throws the entire proceedings into a cocked hat because the
deadline for responsive legal filings may have to be eased given the nature
of the bankruptcy proceedings in Michigan.

For this story, the Body Language attempted to ascertain the impact of
the bankruptcy on the court’s decision and what is really next. At press
time it was not receiving any definitive answer from the courts.
The Body Language will continue to follow this story.