While prospects for insolvency have captured the attention of those following the W. J. Deutsch's lawsuit against Ascentia Wine Estates (AWE), the process has unleashed a series of  corporate mismanagement allegations against  CEO Jim DeBonis.

"Eight Estates [a former name for AWE] may or may not be insolvent in a purely technical sense," said one source associated with the process. "But there is no denying that it has serious sales and financial problems, most of which result from executive mismanagement. That said, the company's only way out of its financial jam may be to file Chapter 11 in order to force debtors to restructure its debt."

That source, along with 17 others interviewed by Wine Industry Insight, spoke only upon a guarantee of confidentiality, some because they were not authorized to speak with the media and others fearful of  "blowback."

"This is messy and going to get a lot messier before it's over," explained one source. "There will be collateral damage. People are going to get shot in the crossfire."

ALL SOURCES GIVEN OPPORTUNITY TO CORRECT & COMMENT

On Sunday evening, Wine Industry Insight emailed a draft of this article to DeBonis, Peter Deutsch and to all sources requesting corrections and additions by noon Monday. While not a standard WII practice, the shortcomings inherent in articles that rely heavily on unnamed sources demand an extra effort to insure a fair, accurate, complete and contextually accurate article.

Information from anonymous sources is never used by Wine Industry Insider unless it is corroborated by legitimate documents or by two or more independent sources.

Neither Deutsch nor anyone from his organization had any comment.

An email from DeBonis read, "Thanks for the opportunity, you definitely have your facts all wrong. I cannot get back to you by noon, but I will later on."

WIN had not received anything from DeBonis by 4:30 p.m. when this article was sent to subscribers,

In addition to its sources, Wine Industry Insight also relied upon W. J. Deutsch's legal complaint filed in Delaware Chancery Court.

DEUTSCH RAN OUT OF PATIENCE, FILED SUIT

"Bill Deutsch got tired of being ignored," said a source familiar with the controversy. "He felt stonewalled, lied to and believed that his legitimate concerns had been ignored. But you have to remember that he's also in litigation with another investment, Renwood Winery. I think he pulled the legal trigger so quickly on this one because he felt his patience with Renwood had been taken advantage of and he was not going to let that happen again."

"Even though WJD has a 27-percent interest, the rest is in the hands of Jim's allies, with GESD holding a whopping majority," said the source.

Ascentia acquired eight orphan Constellation Brands in June of 2008 as part of the $208,770,900 million deal that created AWE.

In that deal, all of AWE's land and wineries were acquired for $115 million by SBV VinREIT, an LLC operated by Kansas-City-based, Entertainment Properties Trust (NYSE:EPR). All the wineries and vineyards were then leased back to Ascentia.

VIP Subscribers click here to read the complete, un-redacted, 2,617-word original article.

Also In This Article:

The full text of the following sections is available to VIP Premium Subscribers).
  • GESD PROVIDED BULK OF FUNDING, GOT HEFTY FEES
  • GIRAUDO ONLY INVESTOR NOT SUED
  • AGREEMENT KEPT DEUTSCH FROM PROPER DUE DILIGENCE
  • IMPOSSIBLE FOR ASCENTIA TO MAINTAIN PREVIOUS SALES LEVELS
  • DEBONIS SHOULD HAVE KNOWN ABOUT "INFLATED FINANCIAL PROJECTIONS"
  • GESD THREATENED TO SUE IF DEUTSCH INVESTIGATED
  • MEDIA GIVEN WILDLY CONFLICTING ASCENTIA SALES FIGURES
  • ASCENTIA: NO STRATEGIC PLAN + INABILITY TO MOVE QUICKLY
  • DEBONIS NO "FREDDIE FRANZIA"
  • FINANCIAL WOES PROMPTED ATTEMPT TO SELL BUENA VISTA WINERY
  • VINREIT NIXED BUENA VISTA SALE
  • BUENA VISTA "LAME" BRAND HURT POTENTIAL SALE
  • BUENA VISTA NOW MOTHBALLED, HOPING FOR CUSTOM CRUSH
  • BARGAIN BASEMENT SALES OF WINE TO INVESTORS & INSIDERS PROVIDED STOPGAP CASH, DEPLETIONS
  • ASCENTIA TOO "BIG CORPORATE" FOR OWN GOOD
  • TOP EXECS FAILED TO HALT "TOXIC ENVIRONMENT"

Not a VIP subscriber yet?

Subscribe now, and get the rest of this 2,617-word original article along with everything else on the site every day for just $9.99 per month or $115.88 per year. Click here for more details.

California ABC Issues Advisory On Third-Party Resellers

Unlicensed Third Party Service Providers

The Department has received numerous inquiries regarding the participation by licensees in programs operated by unlicensed Third Party Service Providers. These programs often involve the operation of Internet websites through which consumers may purchase alcoholic beverages.

While there are many different components to the various programs, the regulatory
concerns remain consistent. The Department has neither approved nor disapproved any of these programs and this Industry Advisory is intended to provide guidance under existing law as to some of the most common issues that typically present themselves to aid licensees in evaluating whether to participate in such programs.

For purposes of this Industry Advisory, “Third Party Service Providers” includes persons or businesses operating Internet websites for the purpose of promoting, marketing, or selling alcoholic beverages. Such persons or businesses are often referred to as “marketing agents”, “compliance agents”, “agents of the consumer”, “agents of the winery”, “agents of the retailer”, “fulfillment operators”, “logistics providers”, “affiliate marketers”, or similar descriptors.

While many Third Party Service Providers engage in activities that do not require licenses issued by the Department (such as, for example, simply producing and maintaining a website operated by or for a licensee, or providing back-office compliance services), many are engaging in activities for which a license is

Following are the statutory provisions typically implicated and the regulatory concerns of the Department:

  • Business and Professions Code section 23300 prohibits the exercising of license
  • privileges without holding a license authorizing such privileges.
  • Business and Professions Code section 23355 authorizes the exercising of license
  • privileges only by the person to whom the license is issued at the premises
  • licensed by the Department.

Business and Professions Code section 23025 defines the “sale” of alcoholic
beverages to include any of the following:

  • Any transaction whereby title to alcoholic beverages is transferred from
  • one person to another for consideration; or
  • The solicitation or receiving of orders for alcoholic beverages; or
  • The delivery of alcoholic beverages pursuant to an order therefore.
  • The Department’s position is that any Third Party Service Provider soliciting
  • orders of alcoholic beverages for or on behalf of licensees is engaged in the “sale”
  • of alcoholic beverages and must hold a license issued by the Department.
  • “Solicitation” includes transactions often described as an “offer to purchase” by
  • the consumer.

The Department does not consider independent delivery services, acting pursuant
to the express direction of licensees, to be engaged in the “sale” of alcoholic
beverages pursuant to this provision.

Business and Professions Code sections 25500 and 25502 prohibit suppliers of
alcoholic beverages (manufacturers, distributors and importers) from giving
anything of value to on-sale and off-sale retail licensees (respectively).

In addition, Rule 106(f) prohibits cooperative advertising by suppliers and retailers.
Business and Professions Code section 25503(h) prohibits suppliers from paying
for the privilege of placing advertising on or in a retail premises—such payment
need not be to the retail licensee directly.

It can be extremely problematic for suppliers and retailers to be involved in the same program through which alcoholic beverages are sold to consumers, as the platform (website or otherwise) will often be financed, in whole or in part, by suppliers with a benefit to retailers, or retailers will necessarily receive benefits from advertising or purchase order submission via the platform.

Business and Professions Code section 25600 and Rule 106 prohibit the giving of
any premium, gift, or free goods in connection with the sale or distribution
(including marketing) of alcoholic beverages, except as expressly permitted. The
Department has observed that many programs operated by Third Party Service
Providers will include enticements or inducements to order alcoholic beverages,
such as free shipping or free items with orders.
June 2009

Licensees may only sell alcoholic beverages to consumers that they actually own
at the time orders are received. As to retail licensees, to do otherwise could result
in a consignment sale between the retailer and supplier(s); as to other licensees, it
may result in the licensee exceeding their license privileges. See, generally,
Business and Professions Code sections 23355, 23393, 23394, 25502, and
25503(a).

Management decisions, pricing decisions, controlling the distribution of funds,
and profiting from the sale of alcoholic beverages are considered fundamental
privileges of a licensee. As such, if any such decisions are made by nonlicensees,
or if non-licensees share in the profits from the sale of alcoholic
beverages, violations of Business and Professions Code sections 23300 and 23355
may occur.

Service fees are not, in and of themselves, improper. However, the
Department does have significant concerns when fees are based upon a
percentage of the sale of alcoholic beverages. The Department does draw
a distinction between sharing in the profits from the sale of alcoholic
beverages and nominal transaction fees charged by independent financial
service providers (such as credit card companies and banks).W

While financial service providers may typically charge a transaction fee based
upon a percentage of the sale, such a fee is generally de minimus and is
otherwise unrelated to the sale or promotion of the product. Moreover,
unlike many Third Party Service Providers, such financial service
providers are otherwise uninvolved in the program and have no vested
interest in the promotion or sale of alcoholic beverages.

In evaluating any proposal involving Third Party Service Providers, licensees should
consider the entirety of the program and the respective roles of the various participants.

Violation of the above statutory provisions may subject a licensee to discipline, even if all prohibited activities are conducted by a Third Party Service Provider.

If you have any questions regarding this advisory, please contact the Department’s Trade Enforcement Unit at (916) 419-2500.

Posted by lperdue on Jun 8th, 2009 and filed under Digital Tech. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

Leave a Reply