Archive for May, 2009
Wine compliance tweets, posts, events, and information
May 22nd, 2009
With every blog post, we research the facts and analyze the data to provide you with an in-depth look of the issues at hand. Though our staff hears news daily and keeps track of industry events and happenings, not all this information makes its way to the blog.
We do, however, post updates, news stories, articles and interesting blog posts as we come across them. Follow @winecompliance on twitter to receive the latest wine compliance news, information, and tips on a more frequent basis.
Additionally, if you are interested in knowing what’s going on at ShipCompliant, staying up-to-date with the multiple events we put on throughout the year, and receiving the latest industry news, follow our new @shipcompliant account on twitter.
On-Site Requirements: Still Standing in the Heartland
May 19th, 2009
Last August, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Baude v. Heath invalidated an Indiana statute that made most out-of-state wineries ineligible for the “direct wine seller’s permit,” which the law would have limited to in-state wineries and to wineries in the few states that do not grant them local wholesaling privileges. However, the opinion upheld the requirement that a consumer’s first purchase from each winery occur on the winery premises, a ruling that led the plaintiffs to seek review in the Supreme Court by petitioning for a writ of certiorari, based on de facto discrimination against distant wineries.
On May 18, 2009, the Supreme Court denied the plaintiffs’ petition without opinion. The consequence is that the Circuit Court opinion remains the last word on the subject, at least among the federal courts of Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin. (The case does not address a subsequent statutory change disqualifying wineries with Indiana wholesaler relationships from direct shipment, but a similar Massachusetts provision that fell disproportionately on out-of-state wineries was invalidated in Family Winemakers of California v. Jenkins.)
Denials of certiorari carry no legal weight as to the merits of the issues, but the ruling illustrates the propositions that Granholm does not “open the states” to direct shipment (in case there is anyone who hasn’t yet gotten that message) and that clarification of Granholm is probably not a high priority for the Court. For the near term, Granholm’s many unanswered questions will continue to leave lower courts considerable freedom in deciding how much a state may burden cross-border wine commerce. If conflicts among the circuits develop over time, chances of Supreme Court review will improve.
When Will The Wine Industry Rebound?
May 18th, 2009
Amidst lagging wine sales in 2008 and a sluggish economy, Silicon Valley Bank Wine Division founder Rob McMillan outlines critical issues facing the wine industry and growing economic and market trends in his “2009-2010 State of the Wine Industry” report.
“Wine businesses across the board are being pushed to new limits in the current environment,” said Rob McMillan, founder of Silicon Valley Bank’s Wine Division and author of the report.
Rob McMillan will reveal strategic and tactical recommendations to wine businesses as they adapt to current and anticipated market conditions and other insider information based on his expert research and surveys of nearly 500 wineries that may help you plan for your future at ShipCompliant’s 4th annual Direct Shipping Seminar & Users Conference. The conference will take place on June 11, 2009, at the Napa Valley Marriott.
Other conference speakers include W. Curtis Coleburn, Chief Operating Officer of the Virginia ABC, and Steve Gross, Director of State Relations at the Wine Institute.
Participating companies include: Wine Business Monthly, FedEx, Wines & Vines, Copper Peak Logistics, Bacchus Fulfillment, WTN Services, Pack n’ Ship Direct, Wineshipping, Benson Marketing, Microworks, Cultivate Systems, Active Club Management, WineWeb Enterprises, eWinery Solutions, Elypsis, WineWare Software, Missing Link/eCellar, VinNOW and EVT Solutions.
Register online today to confirm your spot.
Two Steps Forward, A Couple Back (or Maybe Sideways)
May 18th, 2009
“Tied House” laws contain two categories of restrictions on licensed beverage businesses not found in other industries.
One is general prohibition of beverage suppliers’ furnishing things of value to retailers, with certain exceptions (notably goods the retailer has paid for). The other is general prohibition of ownership or investment by a supplier company or its investors in a retailing company and vice versa, again with certain exceptions. Details vary by state, and there is an overlay of federal tied house law, most of which kicks in only if the prohibited act to some degree excludes a competitor from trade.
Originally, tied house laws were intended to prevent return upon Repeal to the vertical integration, primarily brewery-saloon, that was a prime target of the Prohibition movement. As economic relations have evolved since the early 1930s, the purpose has shifted toward protecting interests of the middle distribution tier, and especially toward countering the growing influence of large chain retailers which, but for tied house legislation, would treat alcoholic beverages in the same stringent cost-reducing manner as other grocery items.
On May 15, 2009 the Washington governor signed a bill that has been loudly touted as loosening that state’s highly restrictive tied house law. Purported reforms permit some trade practices claimed to have been previously forbidden and introduce the possibility of investment and outright ownership between tiers, which had previously been limited to extremely narrow circumstances. However, a close reading reveals that the supposed relaxation is in large part illusory and may net out to tightening Washington’s tied house restrictions.
For a skeptical view of the bill’s particulars, go to the “Legal Developments” page at www.CorbinCounsel.com and click on the link to HB 2040.
Round Four of the Florida Direct Shipping Battle Comes to a Close
May 4th, 2009
The streak continues. Once again Florida lawmakers were unable to pass any direct-to-consumer bills. Legislators presented two distinct direct-to-consumer bills for the 2009 legislative session but both have failed to advance beyond committee. Senate Bill 764 (House Bill 245 is its counterpart), the more restrictive of the two, would have required an annual $250 fee, a $1,000 to $5000 surety bond, a maximum production limit (capacity cap) of 250,000 gallons and a 12 case per year shipping limit. The bill survived three committee votes, but did not make it out of the General Government Appropriations committee. Senate Bill 272 (House Bill 251) would have placed no limits on production amounts or annual case shipments and the license and bond fees were much more wallet-friendly at $100 and $500 to $1000, respectively. Since neither of the bills passed by Friday, May 1, four consecutive legislative sessions have failed to produce direct shipping legislation. The Florida battle has probably been the most intense battle between winery and wholesaler associations over the years.
As of now, there are no statutes in place that regulate direct shipping to Florida residents. According to present law, out-of-state vendors must remit excise taxes and not ship to the five dry counties, but there are no other binding regulations. With no bill passed this year, Florida remains open under the administrative control of the Department of Business and Professional Regulation.
