The Circuits are by and large falling into line regarding the implications and procedures of Tennessee Wine when Dormant Commerce Clause challenges are brought against State alcohol-related laws and regulations. They are rejecting the notion that a summary dismissal of challenges is acceptable and requiring a fact-finding assessment involving evidence greater than conclusory assertions made by “experts” regarding the health and safety effects of laws and regulations. Governments need to present evidence showing that their statutes create the stated effects, and those challenging statutes are a ..read more

A Michigan Federal Court has ruled that the motion to dismiss stage is no place to test the merits of claims that a wine supplier’s termination of a distribution agreement with a wine distributor.  Cana Distributors, a Michigan based wholesaler of wine, sued PortoVino, a supplier of wine (link to complaint), alleging that PortoVino’s termination of their distribution agreement violated MCL §436.1305, Michigan’s statute detailing rights and remedies for the termination of wine distribution agreements. Cana asserted that PortoVino should have paid reasonable compensation for the diminished ..read more

Experience guides the law and the development of workable statutes is no exception to the idea that a society’s legislation should be reviewed and updated often as times change and circumstances reveal what works and what doesn’t.  Illinois Senate Bill 2216 and the companion House Bill 3423 provide keen and reasoned approaches to this method of lawmaking looking to proceed with some small advancement that will benefit Illinois brewers as well as Illinois bars, restaurants and not for profits. The bills, pressed as part of this congressional session provide for the following advancements o ..read more

You’ll recall our coverage of the cogent dissent that Judge Wilkinson penned in B-21 Wines, Inc. v. Bauer earlier this year. A quick refresher, this case involves another in the line of Dormant Commerce Clause challenges to out-of-state retailer shipping prohibitions (North Carolina’s in this instance) asserting that the discriminatory state practice of allowing in-state liquor and wine retailers to ship to in-state residents but not granting the same privileges to out-of-state alcohol retailers violates the Dormant Commerce Clause in the particular instance of discriminating against out-of-st ..read more

Following an initial first-round publication (now edited) and two rounds of comments (here and here), the Illinois Liquor Control Commission has now provided the Joint Committee on Administrative Rules with a second publication and partially edited proposed Administrative Rule governing alcoholic beverage couponing and rebate promotions between liquor manufacturers and distributors and retailers. Here is the link to the updated new proposed rule on alcoholic beverage coupons in Illinois. The new rule addresses three different types of rebates/coupons/promotions: The first are those rebates an ..read more

Judge Friendly often proved the power of an articulate and well-reasoned dissent. His dissents led to Supreme Court review, en banc consideration, and future policy and precedent. Judge Wilkinson has a Friendly-esque track record and his recent dissent in a dormant Commerce Clause wine retailer shipping challenge may lead to further review of the 4th Circuit’s decision in B-21 Wines, Inc. v. Bauer (link to opinion (and excellent dissent)). B-21 Wines involves a dormant Commerce Clause challenge to North Carolina’s discriminatory practice (all judges in the opinion agreed the practice is discri ..read more

The Governor’s signature brought Public Act 102-0442 to life on August 20. The Act effectuates multiple amendments to the sausage of the Illinois Liquor Control Act of 1934. Let’s break them down: Mead is in. The definition of Wine is amended to specifically reference beverages made with honey and mead. Sadly, the Illinois legislature did not adopt the cute “honey wine” moniker the TTB prefers when referring to mead. The amendments suitably expand the Winery Shippers, First-Class and Second-Class Wine Manufacturers and First-Class and Second-Class Wine-Makers and even Limited Wine Manufacturer ..read more

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 th ..read more

This morning, the United States Supreme Court denied the petition for certiorari filed by the plaintiffs in the 6th Circuit Lebamoff – Michigan wine retailer shipping case. For some background, here is our analysis of the 6th Circuit decision that was the subject of the cert. petition. The Northern District of Illinois case remains pending and headed to trial. The post SCOTUS denies Cert. in Lebamoff 6th-Circuit wine retailer shipping case. appeared first on Libation Law Blog ..read more

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 iss ..read more