|
|
|
Wineries Fight State Shipping Laws
Lawyer Blog News |
2007/12/10 17:52
|
Unionville Vineyards plans to expand by planting more pinot noir and adding Rhone varietals next year, but winemaker Cameron Stark knows he's fighting an uphill battle.
He recognizes New Jersey's reputation as a wine producer isn't exactly that of California or even Oregon. But vineyards here and in a dozen other states face another hurdle because of their states' stringent wine shipping laws, which wineries say are stymieing their growth and consumers say are limiting their choices.
"If laws changed, I think it would dramatically affect our business," said Stark, who came to Unionville from Napa Valley.
Many regions across the country are trying to become another Napa Valley or Sonoma, with wine industries that attract tourists.
But laws in some states still prohibit wineries from shipping directly to consumers, two years after a landmark U.S. Supreme Court ruling led many to believe that all states would allow vineyards to ship wine directly to consumers across the country.
The Supreme Court ruling overturned laws in New York and Michigan that prohibited consumers from buying wine directly from out-of-state wineries. Wineries and consumers had sued, alleging those states violated the Constitution because they allowed in-state wineries to ship directly to consumers but prevented shipments from out-of-state.
The court said either all wineries should be allowed to ship directly to consumers or none, but each state still decides whether to allow shipments.
In the states where direct shipping is still banned, it often amounts to battle between wineries that want new customers and wholesalers who want to keep the system intact where intermediaries are a required step between wineries and customers. Wineries can also keep more profit if they don't rely on a wholesaler or retail store.
Allowing direct shipping would add another benefit for less prominent regions whose wines haven't been reviewed by influential wine publications, which don't want to write about wines that aren't accessible to everyone, said Jim Trezise, president of the New York Wine & Grape Foundation.
"In order to get broad-based respect, you need national distribution," he said. "You can get respect, but it's narrowly focused with the few people who can get your wines."
The ruling and a subsequent new state law allowed New Yorkers to receive wine from California and other states.
At the same time, it also opened channels of commerce to allow consumers in other states to directly receive New York wines, Trezise said. He noted that last year, the Finger Lakes region of New York State and the North Fork of Long Island landed on the cover of Wine Spectator.
That's attention emerging regions can only dream about.
Curtis Wallin, owner of Holly Ridge Winery in Livingston, Tenn., said the Internet has spurred interest from potential customers around the country, and he would like to be able to ship to whoever wants to buy his 35 varieties of wine. He said legislators in Tennessee aren't pushing for changing the shipping laws.
"We'd see between 30 and 40 percent increase of sales," said Wallin, who produces about 1,500 cases annually. "We're just a small winery and that's why shipping would mean a lot to us."
Bill Nelson, president of WineAmerica, the national trade association of American wineries, said bills died in Arkansas and Oklahoma this year, but there is legislative interest in a few states for next year.
One of those is New Jersey. About 3.3 percent of the nation's table wine — or 11.5 million cases, according the 2006 Adams Wine Handbook — was consumed last year in the Garden State, making it the most populous state with restrictive shipping laws, Nelson said.
Wineries in New Jersey cannot ship wine, and consumers cannot receive direct shipments from any state, including New Jersey.
With nearly three dozen wineries and more opening next year, New Jersey is looking to promote wine as an economic development strategy, said state Agriculture Secretary Charles Kuperus.
State Senator Ray Lesniak and Assemblyman John Burzichelli, who chair economic development committees, say they support changes to the shipping laws.
"I think a free flow of goods and services is good for the economy and good for the consumer," said Lesniak, who favors wines from Bordeaux and Burgundy. "The more we restrict trade, the less quality of services you get and the higher the price to the consumer and it damages the economy."
Burzichelli said he doesn't agree with the argument that shipping wine is a public safety concern because of arguments that underage drinkers would buy wine on the Internet.
"I grew up in households where there were barrels of homemade wines in the basement," he said.
They're likely to find opposition from New Jersey wholesalers. Lobbyist Jeffrey Warsh said wholesalers' concerns are public safety and taxation, and not losing their cut of profits.
"I'm surprised that the public safety concerns are so minimized in favor of commercial interests," he said.
He said wholesalers wouldn't be affected by the "small, obscure vineyards producing small batches of product."
But those are the exactly types of wines that Matt Wagner would like to have shipped to him from California: Kosta Browne and Merry Edwards Wines in Sonoma or Robert Hall Winery in Paso Robles.
"Basically, I can't get the wine I want," said Wagner, 29, of North Plainfield, N.J.
He enjoys boutique wines with small production that aren't sold in local stores. He also wants to buy directly from vineyards he and his wife have visited on vacations.
"There are ways around it," he said. "If you have relatives who live in Illinois, you can say, 'Hey, hold on to it until I see you next year.'"
Unlike New Jersey, Illinois allows direct shipping from wineries to consumers.
A 2003 federal lawsuit working its way through the court system in New Jersey also says consumers cannot get the wine they want because of shipping laws.
New shipping laws would help wineries as they try to grow, said Tom Sharko, owner of Alba Vineyard in Finesville, N.J., which produces about 13,000 cases per year with 60 percent of sales at the winery. He is planting more chardonnay, Riesling and pinot noir on his 93 1/2 acres, adding to foch, chambourcin and cayuga grapes.
He'd like to start a wine club and ship a few bottles per month to customers on a mailing list.
"There are wine clubs in California that sell their whole production that way," he said. "Instead of relying totally on a New Jersey base for customers, we would have a United States base of customers." |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court Battle Looms over Nina Wang's Estate
Lawyer Blog News |
2007/12/10 17:41
|
A High Court judge in Hong Kong Monday appointed an administrator to oversee the estate of Asia's richest woman, the late Nina Wang, ahead of an anticipated court battle over her fortune estimated to be at least 4.2 billion dollars.
Wang, 69, the former chairwoman of the Chinachem property empire, died of cancer in April, apparently leaving her entire fortune to a part-time feng shui master Chan Chun Cheun.
The will is being challenged by relatives acting through a Chinachem charitable foundation and judge Andrew Cheung said at a hearing Monday he expected a 'protracted' litigation over the huge fortune.
Speaking after the hearing, Chan's solicitor Jonathan Midgley, who had sought an administration order on behalf of Chan, said he still hoped the case could be settled outside court.
Wang was named as the richest woman in Asia in 2006 with a fortune estimated at 4.2 billion dollars, although some estimates suggested her real worth may have been closer to 13 billion dollars.
With no children of her own, Wang wrote a new will in 2006, two years after her ovarian cancer was diagnosed, making 48-year-old Chan her sole beneficiary.
However, her sisters and other relatives filed suit to fight for her estate, which was originally shared between charities and family members in an earlier 2002 will.
Chan is an expert in feng shui, the ancient Chinese practice of placement and arrangement of space to achieve harmony with the environment, and is consulted by property developers for readings.
Wang herself died only shortly after winning an eight-year legal battle over the fortune of her husband Teddy, which she inherited after he was kidnapped in 1990 and later declared dead when no trace of him was ever found.
She built his company, Chinachem, up into a multi-billion-dollar business empire, but initially lost a probate battle with her father-in-law.
In a 2002 hearing, Hong Kong's High Court heard claims that Nina Wang had an affair in the 1960s which led Teddy to cut her out of his will, although they remained married.
Appellate court judges initially ruled she had probably forged the will of her late husband and, after the ruling, police charged Nina Wang with forgery.
The charges were dropped, however, after Hong Kong's Court of Final Appeal overturned the probate decision and ruled there was no evidence to support the claim that Wang had forged the will.
Despite her enormous wealth, Wang, who had her hair in pigtails and wore mini-skirts well into her 60s, was notoriously frugal, once claiming she needed only around 400 dollars a month to live. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Class Action Filed Against Genesco, Inc.
Class Action News |
2007/12/10 17:28
|
Law Offices Bernard M. Gross, P.C. announces that a class action lawsuit has been commenced in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, 07cv1183, on behalfof purchasers of the common stock of Genesco, Inc.("Genesco" or the "Company")(NYSE:GCO) between April 20, 2007 and November 26, 2007, inclusive (the "ClassPeriod"), seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than February 4, 2008. In order to serve as lead plaintiff, however, you must meet certain legal requirements. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Deborah R. Gross or Susan R. Gross at 866-561-3600 or 215-561-3600 or via email at debbie@bernardmgross.com or susang@bernardmgross.com. If you are a member of this class, please contact the Law Offices Bernard M. Gross to view a copy of the complaint as filed or to join this action. Any member of the purported class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member.
The complaint charges Genesco and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Act of 1934. Genesco is in the footwear business. The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants made false and misleading statements concerning Genesco's business and prospects. As a result of their representations, Genesco was seen as an attractive acquisition target for Foot Locker, Inc. and others. Subsequently, The Finish Line, Inc. made an increased offer, based on Genesco's purported success. When the truth about Genesco's results began to be revealed, however, Finish Line indicated it would no longer pursue the acquisition. Then, on November 26, 2007, Genesco received a subpoena from the U.S. Attorney's office for the Southern District of New York seeking documents related to its merger agreement and in connection with alleged violations of federal fraud statutes. On this news, Genesco's stock plunged to $25.44 per share on November 27, 2007, almost a 16% drop.
The plaintiff is represented by Law Offices Bernard M. Gross P.C., which has expertise in prosecuting investor class actions and extensive experience in actions involving financial fraud.
If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this Notice or rights or interests with respect to these matters,
CONTACT: Law Offices Bernard M. Gross, P.C.
Susan R. Gross, Esq.
Deborah R. Gross, Esq.
The Wanamaker Bldg
100 Penn Sq. East, Suite 450
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: 866-561-3600 (toll free)
or 215-561-3600
E-mail: susang@bernardmgross.com or
debbie@bernardmgross.com.
Website: www.bernardmgross.com |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Linda Grant Williams joins Dreier LLP
Law Firm News |
2007/12/10 16:43
|
Dreier LLP announced today that Linda
Grant Williams has joined the firm as a partner in the Corporate &
Securities Department. Prior to joining the firm, Ms. Grant was of counsel
to Greenberg Traurig LLP in New York, and was previously a partner at
Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP.
"We are delighted and very fortunate to have Linda Grant Williams join
Dreier LLP," stated Marc S. Dreier, founder and managing partner of Dreier
LLP. "Her expertise in advising public-private partnerships complements our
current capabilities representing capital providers in the construction and
financing of major real estate holdings."
Ms. Grant Williams will continue her practice in representing banks,
pension funds and other capital providers in the construction and permanent
financing of hotels, shopping centers, office buildings, industrial
complexes, multifamily projects, cogeneration and other energy projects.
Some of her notable real estate and construction projects include the
financing of The Forum at Caesar's Palace, Two Rodeo Drive and One Colorado
Shopping Centers in Southern California and the Greenwich Office Park in
Greenwich, Connecticut.
"Joining Dreier LLP enables me to provide clients with the litigation
expertise, relationships and wide-ranging capabilities of a full service
law firm," Ms. Grant Williams stated. "I also share Marc Dreier's vision of
a cutting edge, entrepreneurial firm that applies creative thinking to
client issues."
Ms. Grant Williams was instrumental in structuring financings for the
Oakland Raiders, Golden State Warriors, and in the renovation of the Rose
Bowl in Pasadena, California. She was recognized by Sports Business Journal
as one of the country's leading sports executives and credited with the
creation of sports securitization, utilized at both the Pepsi Center in
Denver, Colorado and The Staples Center in Los Angeles, California. Most
recently, Ms. Grant Williams created a groundbreaking method for a more
cost effective method of financing U.S. airports, resulting in greater
bankruptcy protection for bondholders and dramatically lowering financing
costs for airlines. This patent-pending business method innovation has been
generally approved for use at the tri-state area airports by The Port
Authority of New York and New Jersey.
Ms. Grant Williams received a B.S. in Political Science with high
distinction from the University of Arizona in 1974 and a J.D., cum laude,
from Loyola Law School in 1979, where she was a member of the Loyola Law
Review and received the American Jurisprudence Constitutional Law Award.
Ms. Grant Williams is a member of the Bar of the States of New York and
California and was recently appointed to the Association of the Bar of the
City of New York Structured Finance Committee.
Background on Dreier LLP
Dreier LLP was founded in 1996 by Marc Dreier as a more responsive and
innovative alternative to traditional "large-firm" lawyering. Dreier LLP
represents a wide range of institutional, entrepreneurial and individual
clients in diverse sectors of financial, industrial and service-oriented
markets. The firm's principal practices are commercial litigation, real
estate, bankruptcy and corporate reorganization, employment, corporate and
securities, entertainment, intellectual property, matrimonial and tax.
Dreier LLP's Los Angeles affiliate, Dreier Stein & Kahan LLP, has its
principal practice in entertainment and commercial litigation and corporate
transactions. The firm's affiliate Schlesinger Gannon & Lazetera LLP has an
extensive practice in the area of trusts and estates law. Pitta & Dreier
LLP is an affiliate which specializes in labor law, and Pitta, Bishop, Del
Giorno & Dreier LLP specializes in government relations. In the 10 years
since its founding, Dreier LLP, with its affiliate members, has grown to
more than 200 attorneys, with its principal office at 499 Park Avenue in
Manhattan, and additional offices in Los Angeles; Santa Monica, California;
Albany, New York; and Stamford, Connecticut. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bank Robber Blames Gambling and Loan Sharks
Court Feed News |
2007/12/07 18:13
|
Self-described gambling addict Scott A. Hasenjaeger was hedging his bets when he robbed a Marseilles bank in January -- he said in court this week he was partly hoping to get caught and partly hoping to get away.
Either way, a federal judge called in his marker Tuesday.
The 34-year-old Hasenjaeger was sentenced to one year and one day in prison. However, the former insurance agent and part-time post office letter carrier from Minooka will be able to spend the holidays with his wife and three small children -- he doesn't have to report to prison until January.
Wearing a ski mask, Hasenjaeger entered Twin Oaks Savings Bank in Marseilles Jan. 24 and pointed at tellers a BB handgun that resembled a semi-automatic pistol. He made off with about $35,277, some of which he dropped as he left the bank. State police arrested Hasenjaeger about 45 minutes later in Minooka with a portion of the loot. As part of his deal to plead guilty, he agreed to pay back the rest of the money.
In seeking mercy, Hasenjaeger told the judge he grew up the son of an "emotionally-detached alcoholic father," catching the betting bug around age 8, when he blew $100 on a cruise ship slot machine.
Picking up his story in college, Hasenjaeger said he was the leading scorer for the 1993-1994 Central Connecticut State University basketball squad. The night before the "biggest game of the season," Hasenjaeger said he used $3,000 in credit card money to gamble at a casino, which he built into $12,000, before losing it all. With empty pockets, he duped a cab driver into taking him back to campus, promising to pay the fare once there. However, after he was dropped off, he fled without paying and was arrested by campus police. He played miserably the next night and was booted from the team the next year.
After his failed college career, he was hired and rose to become a district manager with American General Finance in Minooka, but continued to lose thousands of dollars through gambling.
At the time of the bank robbery, Hasenjaeger said loan sharks were circling him, he was on the verge of losing his job, and his house -- mortgaged twice to get money to pay gambling debts -- was in foreclosure. He said he partly wanted to get caught, because then he figured he would be forced to quit gambling.
After his arrest, he declared bankruptcy and his family now is about to be evicted.
Hasenjaeger joined Gamblers Anonymous, and in 1995 and 2000 was hospitalized at Proctor Hospital in Peoria for what doctors termed a "severe gambling disorder." For brief periods after each hospitalization, Hasenjaeger said he refrained from wagering.
Hasenjaeger's court-appointed attorney, Robert G. Clarke, wrote of his client:
"Virtually all of his family, many of whom he has hurt quite severely, and some of his friends, some of whom have been betrayed by earlier promises of reformation, attest to his good will and his persuasive efforts to reform since his arrest."
In 1995, Hasenjaeger was convicted of criminal damage to property.
Until he reports to prison, Hasenjaeger is under electronic monitoring and has to remain home from 10 p.m. to 8 a.m. daily. He also is prohibited from gambling. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kirkland & Ellis Host Literacy Event in D.C. Office
Law Firm News |
2007/12/07 17:44
|
Last night at Kirkland & Ellis’ D.C. office, law firms engaged in a battle of who knows the most about nothing much in the first annual Lawyers for Literacy Trivia Night. The event, which raised funds for the children’s literacy program Everybody Wins! D.C., pitted nine firms against each other for five rounds of general interest trivia, with a heavy emphasis on, appropriately enough, children’s literature.
The nine firms—Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal; Morrison & Foerster; Sidley Austin; Steptoe & Johnson; White & Case; Nordhaus Law Firm; Shook, Hardy & Bacon; Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati; and Kirkland & Ellis—donated $1,500 to the literacy program for each six-person team.
Mark Young, a partner with Kirkland who knows a fair bit about Winnie the Pooh, Monopoly, and Warren Harding, has been reading to children in the Everybody Wins! D.C. Power Lunch Program for 11 years. Twelve firms around town participate in the program, and he says reading to an elementary school child for an hour once a week is easy to fit into a lawyer’s hectic schedule. “People that have become lawyers have done an awful lot of reading, and they appreciate the value of reading as a skill,” says Young.
The trivia questions ranged from popular movies and music to history. For example, what did Scout dress up as for her school pageant in Harper Lee’s To Kill a Mockingbird? Answer, a ham. And what country has outlawed resurrecting the dead? Answer, Haiti.
Occasionally the crowd got a little rowdy, forcing quiz master, Neal Racioppo, to lay down the law, so to speak. “I just assumed you all were used to the judge being right,” said Racioppo, when one of the Steptoe teams objected to his answer.
Though White & Case had an early lead followed closely by Kirkland & Ellis’ appellate team, the fourth round was especially brutal, knocking out the frontrunners. The Shook Hardy team, called Nobody Puts Baby in a Corner, played a steady game and came in to win in the last round with 51 points.
The team, which scored an impressive looking trophy for their efforts, said their secret to winning was trusting their instincts. Christopher Appel, a staff attorney at the firm, described their strategy with a quote from “The Simpsons.” “God gave us the atom. It’s up to us to make it dance,” he said.
Racioppo enjoyed the crowd, but added that in the seven years he’s been quizzing folks around Washington he’s never seen a more competitive lot. “They weren’t all about finding the answer to the question,” said Racioppo. Instead, “they looked for the loopholes around the questions.” |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Recent Lawyer News Updates |
|
|
Lawyer News RSS
