Ren­ego­tia­ti­ons (of pri­ces) in the sup­p­ly chain and their risks

Rising ener­gy and com­mo­di­ties pri­ces are put­ting many ope­ra­tors in the sup­p­ly chain under pres­su­re, and sup­pli­ers are see­king (pri­ce) adjus­t­ments which would allow them to pass on their hig­her cos­ts to cus­to­mers. To this end, sup­pli­ers are asking their (typi­cal­ly OEM or Tier 1) cus­to­mers to ren­ego­tia­te their con­tracts. Such ren­ego­tia­ti­ons may invol­ve risks if the sup­pli­ers simul­ta­neous­ly announ­ce that they are hea­ding for sup­p­ly chain or pro­cu­re­ment dif­fi­cul­ties or that their liqui­di­ty is at risk.

The risks

If sup­pli­ers announ­ce that adjus­t­ments are requi­red and if this announce­ment is asso­cia­ted with a pos­si­ble deli­very free­ze, the courts will in some cases see this as a (tacit) thre­at to dis­con­ti­nue sup­p­ly. If such a situa­ti­on also invol­ves a rather short time frame, e.g. if the sup­po­sed deli­very free­ze is only a few weeks away, the afo­re­men­tio­ned risk is con­sider­a­b­ly hig­her. If the cus­to­mer seeks a tem­po­ra­ry injunc­tion, the court may issue an order in sum­ma­ry pro­cee­dings requi­ring the sup­pli­er to refrain from fai­ling to sup­p­ly its cus­to­mers (in accordance with the terms of the agree­ment). Even a noti­ce from the sup­pli­er sta­ting that, with the cur­rent pri­ces, it will be unable to secu­re liqui­di­ty and pro­cu­re mate­ri­als on a las­ting basis may be taken by the courts as suf­fi­ci­ent grounds for a tem­po­ra­ry injunc­tion. Alt­hough tem­po­ra­ry injunc­tions can be appea­led, com­pa­nies should not take them light­ly: after all, such orders are enforceable rulings which can be used to block the con­trac­tu­al nego­tia­ti­ons which sup­pli­ers are often entit­led to and which they ulti­m­ate­ly depend on.

The­se is also a risk that the court deci­ding on the tem­po­ra­ry injunc­tion will not grant a hea­ring to the affec­ted sup­pli­er, and that the sup­pli­er will find out about the pro­cee­dings only after the order (i.e. the enforceable ruling) is issued. This hap­pens in some cases even though the Fede­ral Con­sti­tu­tio­nal Court has cla­ri­fied that a hea­ring can only be dis­pen­sed with in excep­tio­nal cases. Pre­su­ma­b­ly, such situa­tions would only occur if the­re is spe­ci­fic evi­dence that a ces­sa­ti­on of sup­p­ly is direct­ly immi­nent and if it is demons­tra­ted that the resul­ting dama­ges would be high. Par­ti­cu­lar­ly in cases whe­re a hea­ring is not held, the­re is a risk that the court will pre­ma­tu­re­ly assu­me that the case in ques­ti­on is an excep­tio­nal case based on an inac­cu­ra­te pre­sen­ta­ti­on of the rele­vant facts.

Mini­mi­zing risk by fil­ing a pro­tec­ti­ve brief

While a tem­po­ra­ry injunc­tion order can be appea­led, such an appeal takes time, even though tem­po­ra­ry injunc­tion pro­cee­dings are con­duc­ted in expe­di­ted fashion, and this is some­thing which sup­pli­ers sim­ply can­not afford (also with respect to ren­ego­tia­ti­on of the con­tract, which may be blo­cked by the order). Moreo­ver, an appeal would not (direct­ly) set asi­de the exis­ting ruling.

In such cases, sup­pli­ers have the opti­on of fil­ing a “pro­tec­ti­ve brief” as a pro­ba­ti­ve mea­su­re. A pro­tec­ti­ve brief is a pre­cau­tio­na­ry brief arguing against the issu­an­ce of a tem­po­ra­ry injunc­tion which can be filed to the pro­tec­ti­ve brief regis­try at litt­le cost. Courts are requi­red to con­sider pro­tec­ti­ve briefs pri­or to issuing a decis­i­on even in cases of par­ti­cu­lar urgen­cy. In this way, sup­pli­ers can at least ensu­re that their argu­ments, and par­ti­cu­lar­ly their pre­sen­ta­ti­on of the facts, will be heard.

What to do?

In case of con­flicts invol­ving the ren­ego­tia­ti­on of con­tracts, sup­pli­ers should pay atten­ti­on to their com­mu­ni­ca­ti­ons and ensu­re that they are con­duc­ting them­sel­ves in accordance with the terms of the con­tract. If they suspect that the cus­to­mer may seek an injunc­tion, they would be well-advised to file a pro­tec­ti­ve brief. They may have reason to suspect such a cour­se of action e.g. if the cus­to­mer announ­ces that it see­king an injunc­tion or even if the sup­pli­er recei­ves mul­ti­ple requests for a state­ment as to its sup­p­ly obli­ga­ti­on. By fil­ing a pro­tec­ti­ve brief, sup­pli­ers can pre­vent a court from wea­k­e­ning its nego­tia­ting posi­ti­on by issuing an enforceable ruling wit­hout even hea­ring the supplier’s arguments.


Stay up-to-date

We use your email address exclusively for sending our newsletter. You have the right to revoke your consent at any time with effect for the future. For further information, please refer to our privacy policy.