ILNews

Senator steers clear of beer wholesaler legal battle

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Legislature won't interfere with beer wholesaler Monarch Beverage Co.'s quest in federal court for the right to distribute liquor.

Sen. Ron Alting, R-Lafayette, chairman of the Public Policy Committee, said Wednesday morning that he won't include language sought by Monarch's opponents in any alcoholic beverage bill that he advances in the second half of the session.

“I respect all of our wholesalers,” Alting said.

The Indiana Beverage Alliance, which represents Budweiser distributors, hoped to derail federal court cases by Monarch, the Indiana Petroleum Marketers and the Convenience Store Association with Senate Bill 415, which stated that if any portion of the Indiana code on alcohol is found to be invalid, the rest shall be interpreted to limit, rather than expand, commerce in that industry.

The lawsuits by Monarch and the convenience stores claim that Indiana's alcohol laws are unconstitutional.

Alting stripped the court-instruction language from the bill, which also deals with how beer makers can do business with Indiana wholesalers. Alting said he delayed a committee vote on SB 415 to give Anheueser-Busch InBev and the Budweiser distributors more time to work out their differences.

Among the Budweiser distributors' complaints is that Anheueser-Busch has flooded their docks with beer they didn't order, while forcing them to pay for it.

“In general, it's not our business,” Alting said. “However, what's a little bit different in this situation is Indiana created the beer wholesalers. They play a very, very important role in the three-tier system [of suppliers, wholesalers and retailers]."

Though SB 415 did not advance in the Senate, Alting said he may still insert language protecting the wholesalers in a House bill destined for his committee. The major beermakers are watching the Legislature's reaction to the industry quarrel, Alting said.

"We will protect our beer wholesalers in Indiana," he said.

Indianapolis-based Monarch and the Indiana Beverage Alliance split over Monarch's attempts to pass legislation that would give it the right to distribute liquor. The other beer wholesalers say they fear Monarch would end up creating a monopoly. Liquor distributors also oppose Monarch's effort.

ADVERTISEMENT

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 Indiana Lawyer 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

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Future generations will be amazed that we prosecuted people for possessing a harmless plant. The New York Times came out in favor of legalization in Saturday's edition of the newspaper.

  2. Well, maybe it's because they are unelected, and, they have a tendency to strike down laws by elected officials from all over the country. When you have been taught that "Democracy" is something almost sacred, then, you will have a tendency to frown on such imperious conduct. Lawyers get acculturated in law school into thinking that this is the very essence of high minded government, but to people who are more heavily than King George ever did, they may not like it. Thanks for the information.

  3. I pd for a bankruptcy years ago with Mr Stiles and just this week received a garnishment from my pay! He never filed it even though he told me he would! Don't let this guy practice law ever again!!!

  4. Excellent initiative on the part of the AG. Thankfully someone takes action against predators taking advantage of people who have already been through the wringer. Well done!

  5. Conour will never turn these funds over to his defrauded clients. He tearfully told the court, and his daughters dutifully pledged in interviews, that his first priority is to repay every dime of the money he stole from his clients. Judge Young bought it, much to the chagrin of Conour’s victims. Why would Conour need the $2,262 anyway? Taxpayers are now supporting him, paying for his housing, utilities, food, healthcare, and clothing. If Conour puts the money anywhere but in the restitution fund, he’s proved, once again, what a con artist he continues to be and that he has never had any intention of repaying his clients. Judge Young will be proven wrong... again; Conour has no remorse and the Judge is one of the many conned.

ADVERTISEMENT