This month, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California issued an opinion in Arena Restaurant and Lounge, Inc. v. Southern Glazer’s Wine and Spirits, No. 17-CV-03805-LHK. The Arena case, also called Nguyen after its original named Plaintiff, seeks to certify a class action against Southern Glazer’s for a wide range of allegedly fraudulent, deceptive, and otherwise illegal acts related to the sale and distribution of wine and spirits in California. The court’s recent order, issued on April 9 and amended on April 16, 2018, dismisses all claims brought by the Plaintiffs in their Second Amendment Complaint (SAC). Significantly, however, the court will allow the Plaintiffs to file an amended complaint within 30 days in an attempt to cure defects in many of the SAC’s claims.

At the center of the Arena case are allegations that Southern Glazer’s engaged in practices such as selling to unlicensed persons and hiding such sales by recording them as sales to licensed retailers like the Plaintiffs. These “phantom” sales, in turn, allegedly created tax problems for the Plaintiff retailers. The SAC also alleges price discrimination between different retailers, selling to retailers without delivering the inventory in order to meet sales quotas, engaging in giveaways of free product to retailers, engaging in illegal “tie-in sales” practices, and a host of other alleged wrongs. The SAC packages these wide-ranging allegations into no fewer than eleven claims for relief.


Continue Reading

On December 15, 2017, a Mississippi trial court issued a series of orders dismissing a substantial number of the claims brought in Rex Distributing Company v. Anheuser-Busch et al., 2nd Cir. Court No. 24C11:17-cv-00033 (Harrison Circuit Court – Gulfport).

In 2016, Mississippi beer distributor Rex Distributing (Rex) agreed to sell its business to Adams Beverage (Adams) for $50.5 million. Anheuser-Busch (A-B)—by far Rex’s largest supplier—then exercised the “match and redirect” right contained in the distribution agreement between A-B and Rex, directing Rex to sell its business to Mitchell Distributing (Mitchell) on the same terms and conditions as the proposed Rex-Adams transaction. D.G. Yuengling and Son (Yuengling) refused to allow the sale of its brand distribution rights in Rex’s territory to Mitchell, citing Mitchell’s previous refusal to carry Yuengling beer when Yuengling first entered the state. Rex consummated the sale to Mitchell for $3.1 million less than the original sale price due to Yuengling’s refusal to go along. Rex then brought suit against A-B, Yuengling, and several Mitchell entities, and Yuengling filed cross-claims against A-B and Mitchell.
Continue Reading