IBJNews

Impact Racing wins latest court battle over safety labels

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The latest ruling in a federal court dispute between an industry-certification group and Bill Simpson's Impact Racing LLC prevents the group from immediately severing ties with the Brownsburg-based company.

The June 21 ruling grants Impact Racing’s motion to stop SFI Foundation from terminating Impact’s contract of participation with SFI until it does so in a manner that is “unquestionably substantively rational and procedurally fair,” the court said.

Based in California, SFI is the not-for-profit organization that sets minimum performance standards for motorsports equipment.

It filed a lawsuit on March 26 in U.S. District Court of Southern Indiana claiming that, between November 2005 and August 2008, Impact hired an Asian manufacturer to produce look-alike SFI labels. The lawsuit, based on an affidavit from former Impact employee Darren Swisher, says the counterfeit labels were put on seatbelts, arm restraints, fire suits, head socks, gloves and boots.

“Until Impact is afforded fair procedure, Impact could suffer irreparable harm, if it has not already,” the court wrote.

The court ruling means Impact’s contracts with SFI did not terminate on June 22 as planned.

In April, Impact and SFI agreed that products made during 2009 and 2010 would remain SFI-certified. In addition, Impact can continue to manufacture and certify its products as SFI-compliant, the company said.

SFI's move to decertify Impact Racing's current product line threatened the business because the gear would be unusable at any track requiring SFI certification.

Simpson started Impact Racing in 2002 after fending off rumors that a seatbelt made by his former company, Simpson Performance Products, played a role in Dale Earnhardt's death. The NASCAR driver died after a crash in the final lap of the 2001 Daytona 500.

Impact has its headquarters and a showroom at 1531 Northfield Drive in Brownsburg and factory stores in Mooresville, N.C., and Irwindale, Calif., according to the company website. The site includes video of the famously demonstrative Simpson set ablaze in one of his own racing suits to show its protective qualities.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. By Mr. Lee's own admission, he basically ran pro-bono ads on the billboard. Paying advertisers didn't want ads on a controversial, ugly billboard that turned off customers. At least one of Mr. Lee's free advertisers dropped out early because they found that Mr. Lee's advertising was having negative impact. So Mr. Lee is disingenous to say the city now owes him for lost revenue. Mr. Lee quickly realized his monstrosity had a dim future and is trying to get the city to bail him out. And that's why the billboard came down so quickly.

  2. Merchants Square is back. The small strip center to the south of 116th is 100% leased, McAlister’s is doing well in the outlot building. The former O’Charleys is leased but is going through permitting with the State and the town of Carmel. Mac Grill is closing all of their Indy locations (not just Merchants) and this will allow for a new restaurant concept to backfill both of their locations. As for the north side of 116th a new dinner movie theater and brewery is under construction to fill most of the vacancy left by Hobby Lobby and Old Navy.

  3. Yes it does have an ethics commission which enforce the law which prohibits 12 specific items. google it

  4. Thanks for reading and replying. If you want to see the differentiation for research, speaking and consulting, check out the spreadsheet I linked to at the bottom of the post; it is broken out exactly that way. I can only include so much detail in a blog post before it becomes something other than a blog post.

  5. 1. There is no allegation of corruption, Marty, to imply otherwise if false. 2. Is the "State Rule" a law? I suspect not. 3. Is Mr. Woodruff obligated via an employment agreement (contractual obligation) to not work with the engineering firm? 4. In many states a right to earn a living will trump non-competes and other contractual obligations, does Mr. Woodruff's personal right to earn a living trump any contractual obligations that might or might not be out there. 5. Lawyers in state government routinely go work for law firms they were formally working with in their regulatory actions. You can see a steady stream to firms like B&D from state government. It would be interesting for IBJ to do a review of current lawyers and find out how their past decisions affected the law firms clients. Since there is a buffer between regulated company and the regulator working for a law firm technically is not in violation of ethics but you have to wonder if decisions were made in favor of certain firms and quid pro quo jobs resulted. Start with the DOI in this review. Very interesting.

ADVERTISEMENT