In Dersch Energies, Inc. v. Shell Oil Co., 314 F.3d 846, 856 (7th Cir.2002), the Court made clear that, where the franchisor jumps the gun and actually causes nonrenewal without notice, a harmed franchisee would not, perversely, be precluded from bringing suit by the franchisor's procedural miscue. The Court put it thus: if the actions of a franchisor indirectly result in a termination or nonrenewal (e.g., an assignment of the franchise), and no notice is issued in conjunction with that action, the franchisee is clearly not precluded from filing suit under the PMPA, even in the absence of such notice.... The central inquiry in both instances is whether the franchisor has terminated the franchisee's statutory franchise or failed to renew the parties' franchise relationship, or formally expressed its intent to do so. (Id. at 866 n. 20.) In other words, in Dersch the Court acknowledged a claim for wrongful nonrenewal where there is either (1) actual nonrenewal or (2) formal notice under 2804 of the Petroleum Marketing Practices Act ("PMPA"). The Court did not suggest that a claim for wrongful nonrenewal may proceed where, as here, neither condition is met.