Beer wholesaler Frederick P. Winner, Ltd., sued Pabst Brewing Co. over Pabst’s termination of the beer distribution rights the brewer had granted to the wholesaler. The termination came after a change in Pabst’s ownership. The beer distributor claimed the termination violated its rights under the Maryland Beer Franchise Fair Dealing Act. The trial court granted the beer maker summary judgment finding that the change in corporate structure at the grandparent level  (see the chart below) following the purchase of the beer company that led to the termination made the current Pabst Brewing Company, a “successor beer manufacturer” for the…
Continue Reading Maryland court rejects control test in interpreting whether a company is a “successor brewer” under beer franchise fair dealing act allowing termination of distribution agreement.

One of the recent in the battle over out-of-state retailer shipping: Sarasota Wine Market v. Schmitt is another win for alcoholic beverage wholesalers. You can read our prior posts on this case here, here and here.

Briefly, out-of-state retailers wanted to ship alcohol to Missouri residents and challenged Missiouri’s refusal to let them do that because Missouri only issues retailer licenses to licensees with an in-state presence.

This case is one of many attempting to keep the holdings of Granholm at bay from the remainder of the three-tiered system by asserting a line between manufacturers and retailers that…
Continue Reading In denying out-of-state retailers the right to ship to Missouri residents, 8th Circuit questions whether Courts should allow dormant Commerce Clause challengers to put on evidence.

CANarchy brought two challenges to the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Code’s 225,000 barrel cap on brewery “beer-to-go” sales. The relevant portions of the statute authorize breweries in Texas to sell beer-to-go, provided they have a production rate below 225,000 barrels annually. This right was only recently added in 2019. The language of the statute empowering these “beer-to-go” sales reads:

…
Continue Reading CANarchy wins challenge to Texas ABC statute over limits on brewery production sizes for direct from taproom “beer-to-go” sales based on a statutory construction resulting from poor legislative drafting.

You can read about this case in our previous posts on it here, and here.

A consumer brought suit against Bacardi based on a 150-year-old law on Florida’s books regarding some compounds and ingredients that, prior to decent Federal regulation and at a time when little was known about such compounds, declared different substances, including grains of paradise, adulterants and banned their use in liquor.

The lawsuit sought a class certification and damages claiming because the statute declared the liquor adulterated, the alcohol was therefore worthless. Bacardi moved to dismiss arguing against the claims, in relevant part, stating…
Continue Reading Here’s the oral argument audio in the Bacardi grains of paradise preemption case.

The Vermont Department of Financial Regulation recently issued an ex parte cease-and-desist order to a winery based on concerns that the winery’s SEC Regulation D, Rule 506(b) exempted offering failed to disclose important facts concerning the winery’s lack of licensure.

You can read the order in the link above. According to the order, a former employee’s attorney reached out to the Vermont Department of Financial Regulation regarding the winery’s business practices. A deputy commissioner checked the Vermont Liquor Control website and learned that the winery’s license was “pending” but not issued raising concerns and the belief that the winery operated…
Continue Reading Winery raising funds without allegedly disclosing that it hadn’t received licensure yet nets ex parte cease-and-desist order from state regulators. A cautionary lesson for wineries, breweries, and distilleries raising start-up capital.

The country-spanning impact of South Dakota v. Wayfair just hit the Illinois direct-to-consumer wine market. The Illinois Department of Revenue has announced that beginning January 1, Winery Shipper’s License holders with no physical presence in Illinois will need to remit the Illinois Retailer’s Occupation Tax provided they do not have a physical presence in Illinois and they meet the $100,000 in sales or 200+ transaction benchmark. This is in-line Wayfair’s determination that out-state retailers must abide by and pay in-state and local taxes when selling to residents of another state (provided perhaps that the thresholds of transactions or volume of…
Continue Reading Out-state Illinois Winery Shipper’s licensees’ must remit state and local taxes on direct-to-consumer wine sales come January 1. Note: collecting local taxes proves taxation is not a reason to argue against retailers’ interstate commerce in alcohol.

The saga over “fizzy” named hard seltzers Brizzy and Vizzy added another chapter in favor of Molson Coors with this 5th Circuit opinion upholding the lower court’s denial of an injunction to Brizzy-maker, Future Proof Brands, in its attempt to keep Molson’s Vizzy from competing under that name.

You can read our review of the lower court decision here, and here, find the briefs in this hard seltzer fight here. Note in our earlier discussions that we called this for Molson a while ago.

The 5th Circuit agreed with the lower court on much of the…
Continue Reading A welcome opinion based on common sense trademark analysis as Molson Coors wins fizzy hard seltzer name argument against Brizzy maker at 5th Circuit.