40900 Woodward Ave. Suite 111, Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304
Commercial Litigation | Wernette Heilman PLLC
Automotive supply chain relationships, sales contracts, commercial landlord/tenant matters, manufacturer’s representative agreements, debtor/creditor relationships, loan guarantees, service agreements, principal/surety relationships, indemnity agreements, development agreements, and other commercial relations can spawn litigation. Avoiding litigation is often the best course, but if you must litigate — be relentless. Superior strategy and hard work win cases. Those principles are embodied in Wernette Heilman PLLC’s litigation practice every day.
Obtained temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions in multiple state courts on behalf of automotive parts manufacturers to prevent their suppliers from cutting off shipments due to late payments. In one recent case, a raw materials supplier threatened to cut off shipments to Mr. Wernette’s client, and cessation of shipments would have shut the client down within days. The client needed fast action. Despite the client’s repeated failures to pay the supplier according to written terms, attorney Mike Wernette won a two-day evidentiary hearing, obtaining an injunction that required the supplier to continue shipping, based on a theory that the supplier had waived the payment defaults. The injunction gave the client the time needed to re-source the raw materials at lower prices, without interruption to its business.
Won a state court jury trial verdict of over $100,000 for a retailer against a roofing company in a breach of contract/fraud action.
Won a state court trial verdict of no liability in defense of a husband and wife accused of engaging in fraudulent transfers in connection with the closing of one company and the opening of another.
Defended a New Jersey plastics manufacturer in a $1.5 million lawsuit filed by a manufacturer’s representative in federal court. After highly contentious pretrial discovery and motion proceedings, Mr. Wernette prepared a series of motions attacking the plaintiff’s case on the merits and seeking sanctions for improper litigation tactics. While Mr. Wernette’s summary judgment motion was pending, the plaintiff settled for well under ten thousand dollars – less than it would have cost Mr. Wernette’s client to go to trial.