IBJNews

Suit spawns liquor-distribution showdown

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana’s largest beer distributor is mounting the latest legal challenge to the state’s arcane, Prohibition-era liquor laws.

Indianapolis-based Monarch Beverage Co. Inc. is suing officials of the Indiana Alcohol and Tobacco Commission in federal court, arguing the company should be granted the right to also supply liquor to bars, restaurants and retail outlets.

State law prohibits alcohol wholesalers from supplying both beer and liquor, forcing them to choose between the two. The system is so unusual that no other state in the nation regulates alcohol that way.

rop-alcohol-121613-15col.jpg Monarch Beverage is the largest beer distributor in Indiana, with a territory covering most of the state’s counties. (IBJ file photo)

Monarch filed its first lawsuit in late October and followed up with a related complaint Dec. 6 from affiliate trucking company E.F. Transit Inc. Both suits argue Indiana’s restrictive alcohol laws violate parts of the U.S. Constitution.

“The General Assembly has never provided an official explanation for why it chose to prohibit beer wholesalers from holding a liquor permit,” Monarch argues in its suit. “The available evidence, however, suggests that this restriction was enacted to further a post-Prohibition patronage system that operated to the benefit of state and local politicians.”

The belief, at least according to Monarch’s argument, is that following Prohibition, statewide politicians doled out licenses for liquor, and county officials handled those for beer. Alcohol wholesaling has remained separate since.

“The argument that we’re making is rather simple and straightforward,” said Brian Paul, a lawyer at Ice Miller LLP representing Monarch. “There’s no rational reason for that distinction.”

Monarch maintains in its complaint that the system violates the equal protection clause in the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution by treating beer wholesalers unfairly.

Grocery and convenience stores wanting to sell cold beer have raised a similar challenge on constitutional grounds. In August, the Indiana Petroleum Marketers and Convenience Store Association filed suit in federal court, arguing the law governing cold-beer sales violates the 14th Amendment, by favoring “one class of retail over another.”

The association won a partial victory Dec. 11, when federal magistrate Debra McVicker Lynch denied 21st Amendment Inc.’s request to intervene. 21st Amendment operates 19 liquor stores in the Indianapolis area.

Legislative action unlikely

In addition to pursuing the right to sell cold beer, grocery and convenience stores want to sell beer, wine and liquor on Sundays.

The convenience and grocery stores launched their legal effort to sell cold beer only after attempts to get the General Assembly to change the law fell on deaf ears.

Monarch, too, has failed to convince legislators in its efforts to distribute liquor. It has tried unsuccessfully the last four sessions to advance a bill supporting its position before resorting to federal court.

The likelihood that lawmakers will have a change of heart anytime soon seems slim, said Ed Feigenbaum, who publishes Indiana Legislative Insight.

“In the short session, it’s probably unlikely, particularly with a lawsuit pending,” he said.

Monarch’s suit, however, has caught the attention of liquor distributors who oppose the company’s attempts to compete with them.

On Dec. 3, the Wine & Spirits Distributors of Indiana trade group filed a brief to intervene in Monarch’s suit, arguing that a change to the laws would enable Monarch to create a monopoly. The Indiana Beverage Alliance, which represents Anheuser-Busch wholesalers, supports the filing.

monarch-factbox.gifMonarch already is the sole distributor of Miller and Coors products in 69 of Indiana’s 92 counties, and reaches the entire state when counting the wine and craft beers that it distributes, said Marc Carmichael, president of the Indiana Beverage Alliance

“It’s a zero-sum game for the Legislature to make a change that dramatic because all it would do is shift business from some wholesalers to Monarch,” Carmichael said.

Dueling arguments

Founded in 1947, Monarch has become the biggest beer distributor in Indiana, in part because of a decision by Miller about a decade ago to begin distributing its beer through larger suppliers. Monarch benefited from its central location and quick access to interstates.

By contrast, 18 Anheuser-Busch distributors operate in the counties where Monarch is the sole Miller and Coors distributor, Carmichael said.

Under Indiana law, beer wholesalers are granted franchise protections that require distributors that take business from others to compensate them for the lost business. Those same rights aren’t granted to liquor distributors.

So any business Monarch might take from a liquor distributor if it succeeds would not cost the company a dime in payments to its vanquished competitors.

Liquor distributors operating in Indiana include Dallas-based Glazer’s, Indianapolis-based Republic National Distributing Co. LLC and Miami-based Southern Wine & Spirits.

The sheer size of Monarch might tempt liquor brands to jump ship because Monarch would be better positioned to promote them, opponents of Monarch’s suit say.

“Monarch’s claim actually seeks preferential treatment that would put Monarch in position to dominate the wholesale tier of the Indiana alcoholic beverage market, to the detriment of Wine & Spirits’ members,” the group said in its brief to intervene.

Seeking cost savings

Meanwhile, the complaint filed earlier this month by Monarch sister company E.F. Transit follows two failed attempts to merge some of its operations with Indiana Wholesale Wine & Liquor Co., owned by St. Paul, Minn.-based Johnson Brothers Liquor Co.

In 2010, the state alcohol and tobacco commission rejected a request from Indiana Wholesale to move its warehouse to E.F. Transit’s Pendleton Pike location. The two then entered into an agreement in which E.F. Transit trucks simply would pick up shipments from Indiana Wholesale’s existing warehouse.

The commission declined to weigh in, saying it would not render legal advice to an alcoholic beverage permit holder. Indiana Wholesale interpreted that to mean it could face a “substantial risk” of violations and backed out of the deal.

The E.F. Transit suit argues that the commission’s refusal to approve the agreement violates a federal transportation law as well as the supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution.•

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Negitive Jobs
    As a retailer and no a fan of Monarch I can currently order and get delivered the spirit based products Monarch is wanting to sell. The product will be taken from one and given to Monarch. There current staff will sell, market, and deliver the product.
  • Say what?
    This part of the article is precious: "The sheer size of Monarch might tempt liquor brands to jump ship because Monarch would be better positioned to promote them, opponents of Monarch’s suit say." Southern Wine & Spirits has $9 billion in annual revenue. Republic National Distributors has $5 billion in annual revenue. Glazer's has $4 billion in annual revenue. And Monarch Beverage has $300 million in annual revenue. Yea, right! I'm sure they're real scared of big bad Monarch.
  • Backwards Indiana
    This state is SO slow to change. Indiana will be the very last state to legalize marijuana
  • Go get 'em, Monarch
    This is the real issue here: I'm not an expert on Liquor, Wine and Beer Distribution either - but our laws are so complicated, outdated and frankly silly that someone HAS to be an expert on Liquor, Wine and Beer Distribution. This is how it should work: manufacturer makes it. Retailer buys it from manufacturer. Consumer buys it from retailer. Consumer drinks it and is happy. (Notice there was no mention of trade groups, politicians, mafia-style extortionists or anyone else).
  • It's all about Connections
    Back in the day, Monarch's owner was well connected and things he was able to do made his family quite fortunate. A very real reason for wanting to be able to distribute more product through Monarch and EF Transit is their warehouse/distribution system, which is state of the art and should be on Modern Marvels. It's very high tech, robotic and requires fewer humans than an old fashioned warehouse. It's really cool. That's why everybody wants to run their product out of there. It lowers marginal cost. My son used to work for a beer distributor and it's all about volume because the margins are razor thin.
  • Blue Laws
    More power to Monarch. These litany of Puritan blue laws are an embarrassment to this state. This is the same state that is bidding to host the Superbowl, on a day that's illegal to purchase alcohol...simply stupidity.
    • Follow the money
      As the suit indicates I suspect that 'back in the day' when the laws were formed that many a politician were enriched by 'granting' a liquor license. Further what other industry has to purchase their products from one company? What is the reason that bar owners have to purchase from Monarch? Sam's, Costco, etc. all offer products that they use and bar owners should be able to buy at the best price. If we change the law lets go all the way. I am guessing Monarch and the other liquor groups would not want that.
    • Won't create many jobs
      Not everything needs to be about "how many jobs are we creating?" If the suit goes forward and Monarch wins (as they probably should - it's an archaic law and defies logic), Monarch will, as the article indicates, probably start acquiring a lot of the smaller distributors and consolidate their service (such is the way for large corporations). That doesn't make more jobs - it probably costs jobs. But hopefully the suit moves forward anyways. I'm all for government fostering a positive environment, but the separate distinctions do make it difficult for retailers and food service customers to get their necessary supplies. Don't use this as a BS reason to malign government - it won't achieve the ends you claim to want, and you'll end up complaining about it in the long term, even though it's probably a good thing for the free market you so dearly love.
    • Is Government Business Friendly?
      While I am not an expert on Liquor, Wine and Beer Distribution, I do find it interesting that, as a business, you must choose your product line. I wonder if Tobacco Distributors must choose between cigarettes, pipe tobacco, cigars, and all of the other products I see on the shelves at the market. If the government was that concerned, why not limit guns and ammo distribution? Buy your guns at one store and your ammo at another. Down in South Carolina, you can buy beer and liquor at State Stores, but you must drive around looking for Wine Shops that only sell wine. I am beginning to think that we have way too much government in our lives. How many additional jobs would be created if Monarch wins this law suit?

      Post a comment to this story

      COMMENTS POLICY
      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
      ADVERTISEMENT

      facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

      Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
      Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
       
      Subscribe to IBJ
      1. Those of you yelling to deport them all should at least understand that the law allows minors (if not from a bordering country) to argue for asylum. If you don't like the law, you can petition Congress to change it. But you can't blindly scream that they all need to be deported now, unless you want your government to just decide which laws to follow and which to ignore.

      2. 52,000 children in a country with a population of nearly 300 million is decimal dust or a nano-amount of people that can be easily absorbed. In addition, the flow of children from central American countries is decreasing. BL - the country can easily absorb these children while at the same time trying to discourage more children from coming. There is tension between economic concerns and the values of Judeo-Christian believers. But, I cannot see how the economic argument can stand up against the values of the believers, which most people in this country espouse (but perhaps don't practice). The Governor, who is an alleged religious man and a family man, seems to favor the economic argument; I do not see how his position is tenable under the circumstances. Yes, this is a complicated situation made worse by politics but....these are helpless children without parents and many want to simply "ship" them back to who knows where. Where are our Hoosier hearts? I thought the term Hoosier was synonymous with hospitable.

      3. Illegal aliens. Not undocumented workers (too young anyway). I note that this article never uses the word illegal and calls them immigrants. Being married to a naturalized citizen, these people are criminals and need to be deported as soon as humanly possible. The border needs to be closed NOW.

      4. Send them back NOW.

      5. deport now

      ADVERTISEMENT