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.
No Sobriety Checkpoints: ABI Serves Up Massive Dish of Stupid
Sobriety Checkpoints are the Wrong Way to Catch Drunk Drivers Over Thanksgiving Weekend
American Beverage Institute Says Police Should Focus on Roving Patrols
(November 24, 2009)
WASHINGTON – Today the American Beverage Institute (ABI) urged law enforcement agencies to forego sobriety checkpoints this Thanksgiving weekend. Roadblocks have been proven ineffective and fail to target the real drunk driving problem.
The ABI advocates in favor of roving patrols – during which police patrol the streets and highways looking for erratic drivers – because they are more effective than checkpoints.
“Sobriety checkpoints are expensive, ineffective at catching drunk drivers, and target moderate drinkers instead of the root cause of today’s drunk driving problem—hard core alcohol abusers,” said ABI Managing Director Sarah Longwell.
Statistics show that the average drunk driver in a fatal car crash was driving at a blood alcohol level more than twice the legal limit. Rather than targeting this dangerous population, sobriety checkpoints inconvenience all driving adults.
That’s why checkpoints are consistently ineffective at catching drunk drivers.
For example, in 2008, over a million vehicles went through 1,469 California checkpoints. Police arrested just one-third of 1 percent of those motorists for drunk driving. Other states – including Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia – have had similar results.
In contrast, records from State Supreme Court cases in Pennsylvania and New Hampshire show that roving patrols catch up to 10 times more drunk drivers than checkpoints. Roving patrols are also cheaper, typically running about $300 (a checkpoint can cost over $10,000).Moreover, roving patrols can catch speeders, distracted and aggressive drivers, in addition to drunks.
“Because they are highly visible by design and publicized in advance, roadblocks are all too easily avoided by the chronic alcohol abusers who comprise the core of today’s drunk driving problem,” Longwell continued. “That leaves adults who enjoyed a beer or a glass of wine with Thanksgiving dinner to be harassed at checkpoints.”
She concluded, “Police should put resources into roving patrols instead of checkpoints.”
The American Beverage Institute (www.AmericanBeverageInstitute.com) is an association of restaurants and on-premise retailers committed to the responsible serving of adult beverages.
Source: American Beverage Institute
Contact: The American Beverage Institute, 202-463-7110
URL: www.prnewswire.com
Posted by
lperdue
on Dec 2nd, 2009 and filed under
Worth A Look.
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.
Subscribe to our feed
The added headline claims, “ABI Serves Up Massive Dish of Stupid,” but offers nothing to back up the assertion — now that’s stupid. But then again, there is nothing to back it up — everything Longwell said was right on the money.
Every police officer I have ever known — and I know quite a few — think checkpoints keep killers off the road. Getting even one drunk off the road is certainly worth the inconvenience. Nobody’s ten or fifteen minutes is worth someone’s life.
Lewis Perdue wrote, “Every police officer I have ever known — and I know quite a few — think checkpoints keep killers off the road. Getting even one drunk off the road is certainly worth the inconvenience. Nobody’s ten or fifteen minutes is worth someone’s life.”
As I said, and as your reply shows, you have nothing to back your assertion. Instead of facts, you offer “police officers … think” unconstitutional roadblocks “keep killers off the road.”
You wrote, “Getting even one drunk off the road is certainly worth the inconvenience.” (Or, as you said, one “killer” off the road, as if every drinker is a killer.)
What you’ve done is reduce the millions of drivers funneled like sheep through roadblocks every year down to ONE “inconvenience” that takes ten or fifteen minutes: “Nobody’s ten or fifteen minutes is worth someone’s life,” you wrote.
You’ve compressed millions into 1, and made every drinker a “killer.” You’ve created fallacious ratio of 1:1. – For every 1 driver inconvenienced, 1 life is saved.
The reality is, every one of the millions of people who go through roadblocks have had their rights violated – that’s not an inconvenience. They have been robbed of their 4th Amendment rights – and you applaud the theft.
The effectiveness of sobriety checkpoints is well documented: http://www.cdc.gov/NCIPC/duip/research/checkpoints.htm.
And the constitutionality is well established: http://www.duicenter.com/checkpoints/index.html
Of course, neither of those links address the faulty logic in your prior post.
The U.S. Supreme Court decision allowing roadblocks (Michigan v. Sitz) was a 6-3 ruling. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Rehnquist, like you, reduced the millions of people robbed of rights in roadblocks down to a “slight inconvenience.” He wrote, “…the measure of the intrusion on motorists stopped briefly at sobriety checkpoints – is slight.” Do note that the Supreme Court is not infallible.
As for the CDC reference: The CDC refers to a review of 23 studies from “around the world.” There are different types of roadblocks, different road conditions, different DUI laws, different definitions, different methods of analyzing data, different cultures – but all were tossed into one bubbling cauldron.
The review of the studies was conducted by a hand-picked team led by CDC statisticians. The CDC is asking people to blindly trust 23 different studies “from around the world,” then blindly trust that the reviewers of those studies accurately and objectively interpreted the summaries of studies “from around the world” that can be “inconsistent, uneven in quality, and even inaccessible.”
But NHTSA statistics are accessible: According to the ABI, “An analysis of the NHTSA numbers shows: Every one of the 11 non-roadblock states saw a decline in alcohol-related fatalities, while almost half of roadblock states saw an increase in alcohol-related fatalities.
Due to this increase, the 39 states (plus the District of Columbia) that do operate roadblocks only accounted for a net 17 fewer alcohol-related fatalities.
The analysis of drunk driving deaths – those above the 0.08% blood alcohol content (BAC) threshold – are even more significant, with the 11 roving patrol states showing a reduction of 308 deaths, while roadblock states saw 40 more drunk driving deaths.” http://abionline.org/roving_patrols.cfm
40 more deaths AND the Bill of Rights was ignored.