cialis 5mg prix http://www.greatbaystewards.org/fempower... http://www.greatbaystewards.org/fempower... http://www.greatbaystewards.org/fempower... http://www.greatbaystewards.org/fempower... aller aquí http://www.greatbaystewards.org/fempower... generico viagra portugal clic cialis generika wirkung viagra bestellen zonder recept aquí http://www.greatbaystewards.org/fempower... viagra sur paris
http://irps.ucsd.edu/baster/index.php?us... 
kamagra price 
propecia mg 
go to 
to click 
here 
go to 
where can i buy levitra 
http://irps.ucsd.edu/baster/index.php?us... 
http://irps.ucsd.edu/baster/index.php?us... 
here 
http://irps.ucsd.edu/baster/index.php?us... 
levitra lowest price 
cialis soft 
kamagra store 

A setback for Costco

A three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled yesterday in the case of Costco Wholesale Corp. v. Hoen. The panel largely reversed the April, 2006 decision that declared much of Washington’s three-tier system to be unconstitutional.

Although the court did agree with Costco that the “post and hold” requirement that forces suppliers to post their prices and hold them unchanged for a period of time is unconstitutional, it disagreed with Costco on two main points. The first upheld the liquor board’s right to ban central warehousing, meaning that distributors must deliver product to each retail store instead of to a central warehouse owned by the retailer. This takes away a key advantage that Costco has in efficient distribution. The court also upheld the liquor board’s right to ban high-volume discounts to different retailers.

Both sides now have the option of appealing the court’s decision within two weeks. They could also appeal to the United States Supreme Court within three months. Costco has expressed disappointment in the decision, but it is not clear whether either side will appeal the ruling.

Read the full Court of Appeals decision

Tea Leaves & One Fact

Some historians say the origin of foretelling the future from tea leaves is an ancient Greek practice of reading wine sediment patterns in the drinking vessels.

Wine-related or not, the lawyer’s pastime of seeking clues to future judicial decisions from what judges say during oral argument is about equally reliable. Nonetheless, it’s difficult to resist a comment or two, following the hearing of the Costco appeal in the Ninth Circuit.

First, the hard news: The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals granted a stay of the trial court’s judgment that significant chunks of Washington liquor law are invalid, pending rendition of the appellate ruling. Because the case has already been argued and has priority status, the Ninth Circuit stay will not keep those rulings in limbo very long, although a further appeal to the Supreme Court could extend it.

The background: The appellate issues in Costco are based on antitrust law, not directly on the Commerce Clause. Thus, the questions raised will be resolved in the light of Sherman Act cases, not Granholm (except as to what that case may have to say about 21st Amendment defenses generally). Of those questions, the most important is to what extent price-affecting rules that would be clearly illegal under the Sherman Act if adopted by collusion among private parties are also Sherman Act violations when imposed on the private parties by state law, with no evidence of collusion. That question divides into three categories of conduct, one in which the state makes and enforces a price rule but leaves it to the private parties (in this case, wholesalers) to say what a price that will be held for a specified time is to be (e.g., price posting), another in which the rules simply eliminate a form of competition (such as quantity discounts), without inviting the private parties to set a specific price, but facilitate anticompetitive conduct in the first category, and a third, in which the rule is just a rule, and any anticompetitive result from obeying it is unrelated to category one. The trial judge found price posting, quantity discounts, uniform pricing to all retailers, prohibition of charging separately for goods and delivery, and prohibition of taking delivery at retailer warehouses for sub-distribution to individual stores all illegal, both as a group (readily understandable) and individually (a somewhat avant-garde view); she put the prohibition on retailers selling to retailers in the third category and did not rule that part of the law invalid.

Now the speculation. Although the Washington price posting law had recently been changed in an effort to reduce its antitrust vulnerability, the judges seemed reluctant to accept it as significantly different from the Oregon law previously struck down by the same court (though not the same judges) and appeared to accept the reasoning of a subsequent case on Maryland price posting, relied on by the Costco trial judge. The “post-and-hold” part of Washington’s price posting law still looks dead. The same statutory scheme also forbids quantity discounts and requires that the same delivery-included price be charged to all retailers, but the judges appeared receptive to the possibility that without post-and-hold, those restrictions might be OK –in effect, move from category two to category three. On the other hand, they could defer to the trial judge’s implicit determination that the legislature’s integrating them into the price posting system meant they were intended to be part of it, and therefore stand or fall with post-and-hold. Jump ball; my guess is they will affirm the trial court, but may provide some guidance to the legislature on what parts of the law could be reenacted. No perceptible clues appeared on central warehousing, which is the most creative part of the trial court judgment. Net impression: The judges aren’t convinced the Sherman Act condemns non-price rules that aren’t clearly ancillary to price rules, might reverse on central warehousing, and almost certainly won’t reverse on retailer-to-retailer sales. On the 21st Amendment, this panel seems as puzzled as nearly every other court before which a state has claimed the defense as to what it would look like if proven. Prediction: They won’t declare the 21st Amendment snipe hunt over, but won’t report seeing a snipe, either. More significantly, they appeared to doubt it would add anything to the existing immunity defense that applies to state action generally, not just liquor. That defense applies both to states acting unilaterally in their sovereign capacities and to hybrid systems like price posting, in which states and individuals play roles, but in the latter case requires a degree of state supervision the trial court found lacking. The appellate panel did not seem inclined to question her finding on that point or to accept the state’s contention that Costco had the burden of proving inadequate supervision. Thus, the big imponderable remains not whether there is immunity for antitrust violations, but how much of Washington law is an antitrust violation in the first place.

Tea Leaves & One Fact

Some historians say the origin of foretelling the future from tea leaves is an ancient Greek practice of reading wine sediment patterns in the drinking vessels.

Wine-related or not, the lawyer’s pastime of seeking clues to future judicial decisions from what judges say during oral argument is about equally reliable. Nonetheless, it’s difficult to resist a comment or two, following the hearing of the Costco appeal in the Ninth Circuit.

First, the hard news: The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals granted a stay of the trial court’s judgment that significant chunks of Washington liquor law are invalid, pending rendition of the appellate ruling. Because the case has already been argued and has priority status, the Ninth Circuit stay will not keep those rulings in limbo very long, although a further appeal to the Supreme Court could extend it.

The background: The appellate issues in Costco are based on antitrust law, not directly on the Commerce Clause. Thus, the questions raised will be resolved in the light of Sherman Act cases, not Granholm (except as to what that case may have to say about 21st Amendment defenses generally). Of those questions, the most important is to what extent price-affecting rules that would be clearly illegal under the Sherman Act if adopted by collusion among private parties are also Sherman Act violations when imposed on the private parties by state law, with no evidence of collusion. That question divides into three categories of conduct, one in which the state makes and enforces a price rule but leaves it to the private parties (in this case, wholesalers) to say what a price that will be held for a specified time is to be (e.g., price posting), another in which the rules simply eliminate a form of competition (such as quantity discounts), without inviting the private parties to set a specific price, but facilitate anticompetitive conduct in the first category, and a third, in which the rule is just a rule, and any anticompetitive result from obeying it is unrelated to category one. The trial judge found price posting, quantity discounts, uniform pricing to all retailers, prohibition of charging separately for goods and delivery, and prohibition of taking delivery at retailer warehouses for sub-distribution to individual stores all illegal, both as a group (readily understandable) and individually (a somewhat avant-garde view); she put the prohibition on retailers selling to retailers in the third category and did not rule that part of the law invalid.

Now the speculation. Although the Washington price posting law had recently been changed in an effort to reduce its antitrust vulnerability, the judges seemed reluctant to accept it as significantly different from the Oregon law previously struck down by the same court (though not the same judges) and appeared to accept the reasoning of a subsequent case on Maryland price posting, relied on by the Costco trial judge. The “post-and-hold” part of Washington’s price posting law still looks dead. The same statutory scheme also forbids quantity discounts and requires that the same delivery-included price be charged to all retailers, but the judges appeared receptive to the possibility that without post-and-hold, those restrictions might be OK –in effect, move from category two to category three. On the other hand, they could defer to the trial judge’s implicit determination that the legislature’s integrating them into the price posting system meant they were intended to be part of it, and therefore stand or fall with post-and-hold. Jump ball; my guess is they will affirm the trial court, but may provide some guidance to the legislature on what parts of the law could be reenacted. No perceptible clues appeared on central warehousing, which is the most creative part of the trial court judgment. Net impression: The judges aren’t convinced the Sherman Act condemns non-price rules that aren’t clearly ancillary to price rules, might reverse on central warehousing, and almost certainly won’t reverse on retailer-to-retailer sales. On the 21st Amendment, this panel seems as puzzled as nearly every other court before which a state has claimed the defense as to what it would look like if proven. Prediction: They won’t declare the 21st Amendment snipe hunt over, but won’t report seeing a snipe, either. More significantly, they appeared to doubt it would add anything to the existing immunity defense that applies to state action generally, not just liquor. That defense applies both to states acting unilaterally in their sovereign capacities and to hybrid systems like price posting, in which states and individuals play roles, but in the latter case requires a degree of state supervision the trial court found lacking. The appellate panel did not seem inclined to question her finding on that point or to accept the state’s contention that Costco had the burden of proving inadequate supervision. Thus, the big imponderable remains not whether there is immunity for antitrust violations, but how much of Washington law is an antitrust violation in the first place.

Washington Excise Tax Confusion

We’ve had number of questions recently from wineries that are confused about the excise tax requirements in Washington. Apparently, the Washington LCB is now just outright rejecting winery submissions if they do not use the correct form.

To provide a little background on this issue, Washington adopted a limited direct model on July 1st, 2006. At that time, out-of-state wineries could apply for a wine shippers permit if they planned to only ship directly to Washington consumers or for a Certificate of Approval (COA) if they are selling to distributors or directly to retailers. COA holders can get an additional no-fee endorsement to also ship wine directly to consumers. Many out-of-state wineries held a COA prior to the July 1st changeover from reciprocity to the permit system.

The question is whether a given winery should submit FORM LIQ-870 or FORM LIQ-778. The answer, according to the Washington LCB, is straightforward. If you are a COA holder, your name will appear on this list and you should file from LIQ-778 and report your direct to consumer sales on line 10. If you are a wine shippers permit holder only, your name should appear on this list and you should fill out from LIQ-870.

Oh, and just in case you weren’t confused before, Washington calls their sales tax reports “Combined Excise Tax Returns” and their excise tax forms “Summary Tax Reports”.

Costco appeal on fast track

The case is moving along very rapidly, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals having taken the initiative in a November 30, 2006 order by designating the appeal as expedited and setting a very prompt date for argument (March 2007). The defendants’ motion before the Court of Appeals for an indefinite stay was denied, but can be renewed at oral argument. The timing adds uncertainty to the legislative process, as the session is scheduled to end in late April, and the cut-off date for introducing new laws will probably occur before there is a ruling on the extended stay. The stay now in place, which was entered by the trial court, expires on May 1, 2007, a schedule intended to prompt the legislature to act if it wants to revise the liquor laws in light of the Costco judgment, which unless stayed by the Court of Appeals would then become effective, rendering a sizeable chunk of Washington liquor regulation unenforceable.

Click here for a description of the effects of the judgment.

Compliance Q/A in Kennewick, WA – 11/28

Welcome to the (brief) second installment of shipping compliance events summary! These events are great opportunities to hear from experts on legislative changes to the rules, best practices for staying compliant and growing your market, special offers on shipping and other related services, and introductions to technology solutions.

November 28th – Washington Wine Industry Summit – Shipping Compliance Q & A

Click here for more information and registration

Three Rivers Convention Center

Kennewick, WA