      

Articles & Newsletter
New Supplier Tricks: When are exclusive Territories not Exclusive?
Unintentional Liabilities Arbitration of Brewer & Wholesale Disputes
Clare Rose, NY A-B house, files suit against InBev and Manhattan Beer
Upcoming InBev Consolidations Led to Legal Fireworks in Metro NY
United States District Court For The Northern District of Illinois Eastern Division
Direct Shipping: Is The
Three Tier System at Risk?
Consolidation: An Offer You Can
Refuse -- But May Want to Accept
Distributors: Know Your Rights
in Brewery Consolidations
Product Warranties Warrant
Risk Management Strategies
Reducing Liabilities Associated
With Product Warranties
Federal Court Applies 21st Amendment to Prevent Circumvention of State
Beer Wholesaler Statute
Restrictive Covenants In Employment And Sale Of Business Contexts: Protecting Your Interests
Direct Shipping Part II: A Big Victory For Distributors In The Second Circuit
Overcoming Adverse Con Tractual Terms: Does Action Speak Louder Than Words?
Arbitration Of Brewer Wholesaler Disputes: The Good The Bad And The Ugly
Employee Discrimination Claims: A Handbbok For Creating A Safe Harbor For Employees
Miller’s Proposed Amendment: The Coor’s Conflict Is Only The Tip Of The Iceberg
Sub-Distributors Beware: You May Not Have The Statutory Protection You Think You Have
Direct Shipping Part III: The Supreme Court Strikes Down Bans On Direct Shipping And A Staunch Supporter Of The Twenty-First Amendment Retires
Bankrupt Brewers And Distributers Effect On Distributions
Modelo V. Gambrinus: Performance Does Not
Count
Barton Gets (Half Of) The East
Sub-Distribution Rights Revisited
Miller & Coors: Whose Consolidation Will It Be?
Miller & Coors II: To Sell Or Not To Sell (That Is The Question)
The Miller Coors Agreement: Who Will Be The Master Of Your Domain? |
|
ARTICLES AND NEWSLETTERS
FOR IMMEDIATE
RELEASE May 29, 2003
Ettelman & Hochheiser P.C. Wins Major
Court Decision on behalf of
Wholesaler Stawski Distributing Co., Inc.
Federal Court Applies 21st Amendment to Prevent Circumvention of
State Beer Wholesaler Statute
Garden City, NY.
Ettelman & Hochheiser, P.C. a corporate and commercial
law firm, fast gaining a national reputation for its effective representation
of beer, wine and spirits distributors, announced another major victory
for its wholesaler clients; a victory with significant national and international
implications.
The case, Stawski Distributing Co., Inc. vs. Zywiec Breweries PLC,
2003 WL 21209860 (N.D. Ill.) involves an attempt by a Polish brewer (Zywiec)
to terminate its Chicago, Illinois based distributor (Stawski), without
cause, in violation of the Illinois Beer Industry Fair Dealing Act, 815
ILCS 720 ("IBIFDA"). Zywiec attempted to avoid the protections
afforded Stawski under the IBIFDA by commencing arbitration against Stawski
in Poland under Polish law pursuant to a provision of the parties' distribution
agreement. Zywiec then tried to stay the action commenced by Ettelman
& Hochheiser on behalf of Stawski in the United States District Court,
Northern District of Illinois, relying upon precedent issued by the very
same court on virtually identical facts (Geneva International v. Pilsner
Urquell, 2000 WL1898573 (N.D. Ill.). In the Geneva case, the
District Court held that the IBIFDA is pre-empted by the Federal Arbitration
Act ("FAA") and ordered the local wholesaler to arbitrate with
the brewer in Czechoslovakia. Accordingly, Zywiec was confident that the
court would compel Stawski to arbitrate its dispute under Polish law before
a tribunal in Poland; effectively circumventing the protections afforded
Stawski under the IBIFDA.
Undaunted, Ettelman & Hochheiser conceived an argument which Judge
Joan H. Lefkow, the judge presiding over the Stawski case, recognized
as being one of first impression: the IBIFDA was an exercise of the core
power granted to the Illinois legislature under the Twenty-first Amendment
to the Constitution to regulate the importation and sale of liquor and
the structure of the liquor distribution system within its borders and,
therefore, the federal statute (the FAA) had to yield to the IBIFDA. In
granting Stawski's motion to stay the arbitration commenced by Zywiec
in Poland, the Illinois Federal Court adopted Ettelman & Hochheiser's
argument that the Twenty-first Amendment "saves" the state statute
from pre-emption by the FAA.
The decision has profound implications since it closes what was an enormous
loophole in the enforcement of the IBIFDA (and similar statutes) created
by decisions holding that the FAA pre-empts state regulations. Presently,
approximately 39 states have passed legislation similar to the IBIFDA
which govern the relationship between brewers and wholesalers and which,
among other things, protect beer wholesalers against termination without
cause. Had FAA pre-emption prevailed, as in Geneva, any brewer
(foreign or domestic) would be able to avoid the application of any similar
state statute, as Zywiec attempted, by simply including a clause in their
distribution agreement requiring the arbitration of all disputes under
the law of a jurisdiction which does not have a protective statute. Judge
Lefkow accepted Ettelman & Hochheiser's contention that this would
eviscerate the protection of these state statutes and render the 21st
Amendment inconsequential. Instead, the Stawski decision stands
as a firm foundation to support the enforcement of these many state statutes
in accordance with the intentions of the legislatures that have enacted
them, and reaffirms that under the authority of the 21st Amendment, the
states have "virtually complete control over the importation and
sale of liquor and the structure of the liquor distribution system".
For additional information on this case or to speak with the partners
of Ettelman & Hochheiser, contact:
Ettelman & Hochheiser, P.C., 100 Quentin
Roosevelt Boulevard, Suite 401, Garden City, NY 11530
Telephone: 516-227-6300, Fax:
516-227-6307 or Email:
gettelman@e-hlaw.com
or khochheiser@e-hlaw.com
|