ALCOHOL LAW ADVISOR
ALCOHOL LAW ADVISOR
Regulatory and Distribution Law Updates for the Alcohol Industry
ALCOHOL LAW ADVISOR
Regulatory and Distribution Law Updates for the Alcohol Industry

Contract Manufacturing Versus an Alternating Proprietorship: What Is the Difference?

by , and | Sep 26, 2024 | , , , ,

We frequently receive questions about the differences between contract brewing and alternating proprietorships, as well as questions concerning the key details the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) and other regulators will be looking for in either approving the proposed structure or, more importantly, during a company audit. Here we discuss the primary considerations for businesses utilizing other premises for production.

Alternating Proprietorship. The TTB allows two or more proprietors with different federal employer identification numbers (FEINs) to operate their respective businesses at the same premises by alternating and sharing space and/or equipment. How does it work? Typically, each proprietor obtains its own federal and state licenses and permits and operates and produces on its own behalf; these latter tasks include maintaining its own reports, records, excise tax payments, label approvals, and bond changes once approved. One proprietor is the “host,” and another is a “tenant” paying rent to the host. The rent can be a fixed monthly rate or based on equipment-hour usage. Other shared-cost arrangements are possible, as well.

During its review of an alternating proprietor’s application for a federal basic permit, the TTB will evaluate the written agreement between the alternating proprietor and the host. The TTB’s primary concern is to ensure the protection of each proprietor’s revenue. As such, the separation and movement of each proprietor’s products, payment of taxes, etc., will likely face the most scrutiny by TTB in an alternating proprietorship agreement. Accordingly, the alternating proprietorship agreement should expressly state that the alternating proprietor is responsible for its own production, recordkeeping, reporting, labeling, and payment of taxes. The agreement should provide that the alternating proprietor will pay the host directly for its floor space, equipment use, and, where applicable, personnel time and material consumed if the host is to provide additional services or materials. Payment to the host should not be based on volume rates (e.g., tons, gallons, or cases). The TTB reviews all of these factors to determine if the arrangement is a true alternating proprietorship and not a contract manufacturing relationship in disguise.

Entities engaging in alternating proprietorships frequently use a combination of direct employees and independent contractors to maintain their operations. In this highly specialized industry, independent contractors are in high demand due to their extensive knowledge and experience. Utilizing these workers enables producers to meet higher production targets with a shorter learning curve, while allowing direct employees to learn the process with limited downtime. However, it should be clear in the alternating proprietorship agreement that these employees are acting solely at the alternating proprietor’s direction, or they should be hired directly by the alternating proprietor.

Contract Manufacturing. Also known as co-packing, contract manufacturing is an operational methodology that differs from an alternating proprietorship. With contract packaging, a co-packer entity produces and/or packages product(s) on behalf of their customers, with all operations occurring under the co-packer’s license or permit and often under the customer’s trade name. In a co-packing situation, the co-packer also may be producing or packaging for [...]

Continue Reading



Seasonal Considerations for Packaging and Selling Alcoholic Beverages

by and | Sep 6, 2024 | , , ,

The final quarter of the year is the alcohol industry’s busiest period, accounting for approximately 70% of annual business. Many holiday-themed seasonal products are beginning to make their way to market, and it is important to remember that these products may have additional regulatory considerations and hurdles.

The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) publishes a list of allowable revisions to approved labels – that is, the changes that can be made to a product with an existing certificate of label approval (COLA) without necessitating a new label approval. Notably, however, seasonal products have special allowances. Generally, any nonmandatory label information, such as a graphic, would require a new COLA to be added to a label. Yet, in accordance with Allowable Revision #28, so long as that graphic is holiday and/or seasonally themed, it can be added, deleted, or changed without a new COLA. For example, adding a smiley face to a label would require a new COLA, but adding a candy cane would not.

Even though the candy cane would not require a new COLA, it is important to remember that any additions must not conflict with or qualify the mandatory information, and they must comply with all existing regulations and avoid all prohibited practices. For example, “Happy Valentine’s Day!” can be added to a label, but “Dizzy with love on Valentine’s Day” could not be added – with the acquisition of a COLA or without. “Dizzy” or other statements that describe how the contents of the bottle may affect someone would, if added to a distilled spirits label, run afoul of 27 CFR § 5.129 (a)(1), as the term implies a physical or psychological sensation resulting from consuming the distilled spirits. For wines, a similar qualification can be found in 27 CFR § 4.39(h), and for beers, it can be found in 27 CFR § 7.129(a)(1).

After the new seasonal labels have been printed, there are several additional considerations. These include:

  • Packaging: There are limitations on whether the alcoholic beverage can be packaged together with a food or point of sale (POS) item.
  • Pricing: It is important to consider the price and whether the market will allow a pricing variance from the same alcoholic beverage when not accompanied by POS.
  • Separate brand registrations and price postings where required.
  • Special price posting designations, such as a limited availability designation for New York.

Label and packaging compliance is an area that is routinely investigated by the TTB and state regulators. Regulators conduct these compliance checks by visiting retail locations and verifying that the labels on the products conform to state and federal labeling requirements. When a label is not in compliance, the industry member may face penalties and will need to address the regulators’ concerns and correct the label(s). Maintaining compliance with TTB and state regulations helps safeguard existing licenses and helps avoid disruptions within supply chains.

For questions or assistance with seasonal items or their packaging, please contact Alva Mather [...]

Continue Reading



Maine Updates Ownership Disclosure Requirements

by and | Aug 30, 2024 | ,

On August 9, 2024, the new Public Law 2023, ch. 633 (L.D. 2069) from Maine’s Bureau of Alcoholic Beverages and Lottery Operations (BABLO) formally went into effect, bringing an end to the previous burdensome “entire ownership” disclosure requirement that disrupted the industry in 2023.

This legislation establishes new ownership disclosure requirement related to alcohol licensing in Maine. It amends Sec. 1. 28-A MRSA § 651 to require the disclosure of any person holding an ownership interest of 10% or more in the license or certificate holder in the state of Maine. Additionally, if a business meets this threshold of ownership in the licensee, that business must also disclose any individual or entity which holds 10% or more in said business; if no one meets this threshold, the license holder may submit an affidavit which attests that no individual or entity holds such ownership interest in the licensee or applicant.

The new legislation also requires in Sec. 2. 28-A MRSA § 651 that the licensee or applicant disclose any individual or entity holding indirect financial interest in the license holder, with “indirect financial interest” including (a) an option or right to acquire equity interest in the licensee or (b) a right to payment of or based upon all or any portion of revenues, profits, or losses from the operation of the licensee.

In connection with the implementation of these new disclosure requirements, BABLO has issued a new Supplemental Ownership Form for convenience of industry members to identify the information required from the necessary stakeholders. With many licenses operating on temporary extensions for the last year as BABLO updated these requirements, industry members are now working diligently to complete the necessary documents for renewal of their existing licenses.

McDermott’s alcohol team is ready to guide you through the new requirements. For questions or assistance with Maine’s disclosure requirements, please contact Alva Mather or the alcohol team.



Pennsylvania Expands Access to Ready-to-Drink Cocktails

by and | Jul 26, 2024 | , , , , ,

On July 17, 2024, Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro signed SB 688 into law, expanding the number of available outlets that can sell ready-to-drink cocktails (RTDs) across the state.

The new law defines “Ready-to-drink cocktails” as “beverage[s], composed in part of distilled liquor … premixed and packaged in original containers by the manufacturer, containing not more than sixteen ounces … The term shall include any beverage consisting of at least one-half of one per centum, but not greater than twelve and one-half per centum, alcohol by volume.” Notably, this term does not encompass beer, malt or wine-based RTD beverages.

Explaining the intent behind the bill, sponsor Senator Mike Regan, in a February 17, 2023, memo, cited the recent growth and overall popularity of the RTD category as the reason why RTD beverages deserve to be treated differently from other liquor-based products.

Prior to the new law, liquor-based RTDs could only be sold through state-run stores, where they compete for limited shelf and cooler space that is not commensurate with their market share. Spirits and all products containing spirits had to be sold by in-state manufacturers and out-of-state vendors to the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board. The board would then sell to liquor-licensed retailers, such as restaurants and bars, and to its state liquor stores. As a result, consumers would have to purchase RTDs in the same manner they would purchase higher ABV spirit products at a state-run store.

With SB 688’s enactment, Pennsylvania now allows for these spirits-based RTDs to be sold either through the board state-store system or through the state’s independently licensed beer network with the acquisition of an additional permit. Notably for manufacturers – both in-state and out-of-state – Pennsylvania’s franchise laws that cover Pennsylvania beer distribution do not extend to RTDs.

Before buying RTDs for resale, retailers and distributors will need to acquire a new type of permit called a “Ready-to-Drink Cocktail Permit.” Retailers will be able to purchase RTDs from state-run stores (as they do currently) and also from in-state limited distilleries. Consumers will be able to purchase RTDs from the retailers who have acquired the “Ready-to-Drink Cocktail Permit,” from state stores, from in-state distilleries, and from distributors and importing distributors.



Growing Regulatory Focus on ‘Crossover Alcohol Products’

by | Jul 10, 2024 | , , , , ,

As more companies – including businesses with and without experience producing alcoholic beverages – move to leverage their brands and brand equity across the beverage spectrum, regulators, trade associations and the companies themselves are focusing on ways to responsibly label, advertise, market and display these products to avoid consumer confusion and potential sales to minors.

Crossover alcohol products are generally categorized as alcohol beverages that use the products and intellectual property (e.g., brand names, logos) of a preexisting non-alcohol brand. While not legally defined (yet), such products include Dunkin’ Spiked Original Iced Coffee, Eggo Brunch in a Jar, Lipton Hard Iced Tea and SunnyD Vodka Seltzer, among others. As illustrated by these examples, products such as Lipton Hard Iced Tea leverage the non-alcoholic Lipton Iced Tea branding for a new product in the alcohol space.

As crossover alcohol products have become more prevalent across the market, state regulators have started taking notice and providing guidance to alcohol producers as to how to assure these products are not “false or misleading,” as defined by alcohol regulations, or tend to induce minors to drink the alcoholic product either through the products’ labels, packaging or store-display locations. The Commonwealth of Virginia, in particular, has taken the lead through the issuance of Circular Letter 23-01, which provides guidelines for alcohol producers as they develop these products. These guidelines focus on the following, among other issues:

  • Ensuring that the crossover product clearly indicates the type of alcohol it contains, with such information visible in at least three to six different locations.
  • Ensuring that the sizes of the alcohol references and warnings are sufficiently large and noticeable in comparison to other writings on the product label.
  • Ensuring that any and all changes to product labels, containers and secondary packaging clearly distinguish the crossover products from the original non-alcoholic products so as to prevent consumer confusion; such changes may involve the color palette, font type, imagery, placement of words, images and descriptions, or background elements.
  • Ensuring that secondary closures, such as foil lids, plastic wrapping, lip guards, stickers or other “child-proof” packaging, are present, to prevent accidental consumption by a minor.

Recently, a coalition including the Distilled Spirits Council of the United States (DISCUS), Wine & Spirits Wholesalers of America (WSWA), FMI – The Food Industry Association, and the National Association of Convenience Stores (NACS) (representing the three tiers of the industry: suppliers, wholesalers and retailers), issued a joint commitment related to the responsible marketing and merchandising of crossover alcohol products. Similar to Virginia’s guidance, the coalition is focused on assuring that these products are not confused for their non-alcohol counterparts and do not appeal to those under the legal purchase age, based on the appeal of the underlying brand. Accordingly, the coalition looks to alcohol producers to commit to responsible production, packaging and marketing of crossover alcohol products by:



Subscribe

BLOG EDITOR

Alva C. Mather

STAY CONNECTED

Subscribe

TOPICS

ARCHIVES

RankedInChambersUSA 2022