Alcohol distributor fights decision allowing big competitor into Indiana

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

National Wine & Spirits Inc. suffered a staggering reversal of fortune when a state regulatory body dropped its opposition to a giant competitor entering the Indiana market.

And now the Indianapolis-based wine and liquor distributor is going to court to stop it.

The Indiana Alcohol and Tobacco Commission ruled Nov. 5 that Miami-based Southern Wine & Spirits of America Inc. could distribute in Indiana. The wine and liquor permits were issued as of Nov. 20.

That’s bad news for National. Even though it controls nearly 60 percent of the Indiana market, it is 1/10 the size of Southern. Southern holds distribution agreements with alcohol manufacturers in 29 states, which National fears it will leverage to steal away National’s Indiana contracts.

National CEO James E. LaCrosse called Southern “the 800-pound gorilla” earlier this year, warning the commission that Southern would drive his company out of business in Indiana, where it employs about one-third of its 1,700 workers.

The four-member commission’s decision to OK Southern’s entry was “arbitrary, capricious and otherwise not in accord with law,” National’s attorneys wrote in their lawsuit filed Nov. 16. They want Marion Superior Court Judge David Dreyer to stay the permits and tell the commission to reconsider its ruling.

Calls to National’s officers and attorneys were not returned.

The commission’s decision was surprising. Its unanimous ruling in favor of Southern reversed two previous rulings—also made unanimously—that denied Southern’s application for permits.

In 2008, the commission turned Southern away because the owners of the company dwell outside Indiana. That residency restriction, however, was effectively nixed in a Sept. 14 opinion by the Indiana Attorney General’s Office.

The next day, the commission denied Southern again, this time citing anticompetitive behavior in other states. Southern’s attorneys said the commission’s reasons were “economic protectionism.”

Alex Tanford, an Indiana University law professor in Bloomington, said National’s chances in court are low because Southern’s anticompetitive behavior in other states “is not grounds for denying them a permit.”

Tanford, who has lobbied in recent years to allow Hoosiers to buy wine online, said he likes the commission’s decision.

“Will it hurt National?  Who knows, and who cares?” he wrote in an e-mail. “Competition is good for any industry. It may force National to do a better job of serving the public with a wider variety of products (especially wine) distributed at a lower cost.”

Thomas Snow, chairman of the commission, declined to comment on the body’s approval of Southern’s permits or on National’s lawsuit, which names the commission as defendant.

Rick Northern, an attorney for Southern, also declined to comment on the lawsuit but said the company is moving to begin operations in Indiana.

“We’re excited about coming to Indiana, and we’re pleased with the commission’s decision,” he said.

However, National contends that Southern has already been angling to monopolize the Indiana market via a joint venture it announced in August 2008 with Dallas-based Glazer’s Distributors. Glazer’s has an ownership stake in Indiana’s second-largest liquor distributor, Olinger Distributing Co.

In court filings, National claimed Southern and Glazer worked together to lure away an alcohol manufacturer, Las Vegas-based Patron Spirits Co., which had used National as its Indiana distributor for 12 years.

National officers told the commission that, in January, a Patron representative said the company had switched its Indiana business to Southern. He later corrected himself to say Olinger.

“There is a direct link joining the highest levels of Olinger’s management, the joint venture and Southern,” wrote National’s attorneys in their lawsuit.

That relationship worried the commission, according to its Sept 15 denial. The commission also was concerned that Southern had been investigated for trade-practice violations in Illinois in 2002 and in New York in 2005.

But six days after the commission’s denial, Southern and Glazer announced that the joint venture was off because of “the sheer complexity of the transaction.”

Southern, citing the end of the joint venture, pressed the commission anew for Indiana permits. It also countered the concerns about its trade practices by noting that the Illinois and New York investigations looked at all major alcohol distributors in those states, including National in the Illinois case.

“Unless the commission intends to revoke the permits of every Indiana wholesaler and supplier that has been investigated in another state, the commission’s [denial] sets forth an unequal and, therefore, arbitrary application of law,” Southern’s attorneys wrote in a brief filed with the commission.

The commission agreed. The end of the Southern-Glazer joint venture removed the key hurdle, Snow wrote in his ruling, adding that Southern’s arguments had “refuted” all concerns about its trade practices.

But National’s attorneys derided Southern’s “everybody’s-doing-it” argument, saying it ignored that investigations had turned up evidence of trade violations against Southern, but not against National.•


Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. Yes sir keep cashing those 300K a year checks direct to IMS, while millions disappear from the teams like Rahal's. Guess there wasn't enough ka- ching going around to keep Sarah Fisher in business without their "merger". LOL._____.Meanwhile back in Realville the series with the "best racing in the world" drew what appeared to be about 5000 live spectators ( and probably 1500 of those Target "freebies", and was beaten in the ratings by a series that reportedly consists of "parades" and aired while most people are still sleeping. That will generate those big ka-chings for sure. :-). But, hey, as long as the Speedway gets the cash who gives a damn about the teams?

  2. Welcome to PETERSON LOAN AGENCY Company (A Personalized Service for All Your Financial Needs) We, Liberal Investment Company Providers offers loan at a very low interest rate of 2%, we offer Personal loans, Debt Consolidation Loan, Venture Capital, Business Loan, Educational Loan, Home Loan, and Loan for any reason and urgent needs!. with a maximum duration of 30 years. Have you been turned down by your bank? Do you have bad credit? Do you have unpaid bills? Are you in debt? Do you need to set up a business? Worry no more as we are here to offer you a low interest loan. Our loan ranges from $5,000-USD (Five Thousand US dollars) to $50, 000,000.00.(Fifty Million US dollars). We also lend in USA DOLLARS EURO and POUNDS ! Fill in this form and forward it to our email: PETERSONLOANAGENCY@GMAIL.COM 1. Your Full names:_______ 2. Contact address:_______ 3. Country Of Residence:______ 4. Loan Amount Required:________ 5. Duration:_____ 6. Gender:_____ 7. Occupation:________ 8. Monthly Income:_______ 9. Date Of Birth:________ 10.Telephone Number:________ 11. Purpose of loan:_________ Yours In Service, MR PERRY, PETERSONLOANAGENCY@GMAIL.COM

  3. If I could actually get the prices...I would do this on my own. We need laws that force provides to publish the costs they will charge. Everyone else gives you the price in advance...except hospitals.

  4. I was under the impression that fencing is not allowed on a front yard and that on a corner, both sides are considered "front" yards, therefore can't be fenced without a variance. Also impedes the visibility for drivers at the intersection. Am I understanding this correctly? Might be why a fence was not included in the plans and a request for a variance will have to be made?.

  5. I was a big fan of Cowards and Carrots, which I got a chance to see at the show. It's currently on Kickstarter, but the designer also put out What's He Building in There last year, which got a fair amount of buzz.