Busy times for Pabst legal. In addition to winning Winner dismissal in MD and battlin’ MC in Milwaukee over future contract production, Pabst also trying to get case filed by several Ohio distribs dismissed. Predictably, Pabst wasted no time in providing US Dist Ct in Oh with fresh copy of US Appeals Ct’s recent decision supporting terminations by different supplier (NAB owner) of some of same distribs that Pabst terminated in 2015 under same Oh law. (See Jul 11 Express.) Indeed, US Dist Ct had put Pabst case on hold pending 6th Circuit’s decision “because the statutory and constitutional issues in [NAB] case were so similar in this case,” Pabst pointed out. As we noted earlier this week, distribs terminated by Pabst argued that like NAB purchaser, Pabst not true successor brewer under Oh law that can terminate without cause after purchase, given that purchase happened via several levels of holding companies. But Appeals Ct focused on “control” of brands and found control clearly passed in NAB situation. And that sure seems same in Pabst situation. In any case, Pabst noted that Appeals Ct dismissed “constitutional challenges raised by” some of same distribs in NAB case and that “the rationale of the Sixth Circuit applies equally to the issues in this case, and supports the entry of summary judgment in favor of Pabst.”
Pabst Asks US Dist Ct to Dismiss Oh Distrib Suits; US Appeals Ct Rationale in NAB “Applies Equally”
Publishing Info
- Newsletter: INSIGHTS Express
- Published: 07/14/2016
- Volume: 18
- Issue #: 122