Jump to content

cbenoit

Members
  • Posts

    33
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Toronto, ON

cbenoit's Achievements

Contributor

Contributor (2/3)

0

Reputation

  1. We're in Toronto and required to register with the FDA and get a Foreign Facility Registration #, and agree to FDA inspections here in Canada. We also have to give the FDA advance notice of every shipment into the U.S., or CBP won't release the cargo. FDA can and does take samples from pallets on occasion.
  2. Can you deliver locally? If so, then you can probably ship as well, although USPS won't handle beverage alcohol. With FedEx and UPS, you've got to have an alcohol agreement attached to your shipping account.
  3. My previous posts weren't aimed at Chip's current situation, just best practices for people running businesses. And yea, if you believe you have a legitimate cause to object to a discovery demand or order, definitely make it, or you'll lose your opportunity. If you bring it up later, the court will be less sympathetic. There's no role for encryption-as-protection against civil litigation. If you're seen to be obstructing the litigation, you're putting yourself at a disadvantage. By all means vigorously protest discovery demands, but don't destroy records. And encrypting them won't get help you if the other party has a legitimate reason to see the records:
  4. James, encryption is great for protecting against unwanted intruders, but not against court subpoenas. If you hand it over encrypted, they'll just tell you to unlock it and take off the password. Refusing to cooperate in discovery or otherwise obstructing (by handing in a damaged device) is not a good choice. A court instruction directing a jury to make adverse inferences against you because you were responsible for missing records = you lose. There are serious fines and sanctions for spoilage. If you have really embarrassing personal records on the device being subpoenaed that you really don't want the other party to see and aren't relevant to the litigation, you can petition the court to have a neutral third party vendor comb through your phone/computer to ensure only relevant docs are handed over. But that could be a lot more expensive for you than the initial investment of having a company-only device.
  5. Yea, James, I agree that's pretty natural / justified, but god forbid if you're ever in a similar situation, don't do it! Here is a good rule to live by: if you anticipate litigation, don't delete anything; doing so is "spoliation of evidence". This is an area where technology has left the law in the dust, and as a result a lot of people are doing things that are entirely reasonable to most of us, but seriously frowned on by the courts. For example, none of us would think twice about deleting family texts off our company phone before returning it. A fair minded person would have no problem concluding that personal texts from your spouse are not relevant. But the law doesn't trust you to do that ad hoc with possible litigation on the horizon. Discovery used to be so much simpler when everything was on paper and in file cabinets. You knew you were doing something bad if you shredded those company records in the filing cabinet as a result of something going sideways. We don't feel the same way about every text message because invariably all those digital records don't have the same weight as our old paper files. All the time now across the country people are getting subpoenaed, being asked to turn over their entire laptop as part of a lawsuit - yikes! Rule #1: write every text message and email in such a way that you would be comfortable with it being read back to you by opposing counsel in a courtroom. When that's not doable, call the person. Rule #2: as soon as viable (it'll seem like a waste of money), get a dedicated company phone and computer. Then #1 starts to become doable; mind you #1 is still a good rule to live by for your personal phone and computer as well (just ask Governor McDonnell and his wife). Rule #3: adopt an official Company Records Management policy, especially if you can't help yourself with Rule #1. The ABA website gives an example here. Basically what this policy does is apply some order to saving and deleting of files. So, for example, if can't bring yourself to give up forwarding chain letters or writing personal notes from the company computer/phone, then you should at least have a policy where those types of "records" get deleted on a scheduled basis. E.g., once or twice a year on pre-arranged dates you go through your inbox and sort things out that need to be saved and delete the rest. If it's done on an approved company schedule, courts are sympathetic - with the giant, huge caveat that if you sense litigation is on the horizon, you absolutely must stop deleting. Anyway, best wishes for Chip, hang in there sir.
  6. In British Columbia, it's 50,000 liters of finished product per year, and then between 50,000 to 100,000 liters there's a graduated increase of provincial levy until you get to 100,000.
  7. Certainly seems insane that "the law does not allow for warnings". I think this is a really interesting issue for distilleries. So many people want to learn the art, and proactively contact distilleries insisting that they want to work for free to learn the ropes. If you didn't know better, it would be very tempting to take them up on their offer of help with cleaning, bottling in exchange for teaching them distillation. Now, I'm not a labor lawyer, but I had a conversation with an agent for the worker's comp board of the Province of Ontario, and he laid out to me a very clear framework, one which I thought was quite sensible. First, he said there is no prohibition in Ontario on for-profit companies having volunteers come by. But whether a person is a volunteer will be determined by how you interacted with them, not how you chose to label them. Basically, don't attempt to direct or control them in any way like you might with an intern/trainee/employee. Don't even say "be here at 9am". Say "We'll be doing [x] at 9am, you're welcome to come by". Definitely don't schedule individuals with conveyed expectations that they show up. Treat all volunteers as you would an elderly church lady who wandered in on a Sunday after service and said she loved labeling and asked if it'd be alright if she put some labels on bottles for a while to relax. Anyway, take it for what it's worth (which is probably not much for everyone outside Ontario), but I thought it was good advice generally.
  8. License to Swill: D.C.’s Unique Booze Laws Allow a Way Around the Middleman. Guess Who Isn’t Happy? http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/youngandhungry/2013/08/07/license-to-swill-d-c-s-unique-booze-laws-allow-a-way-around-the-middleman-guess-who-isnt-happy/ One thing the (very good) article doesn't mention is that many DC licensed wholesalers are actually MD/VA wholesalers. The Bud Light trucks roll in with Maryland plates.
  9. I think it'd be great if TTB promulgated a "craft" designation / certification. State governments that do this will be helping build a reputable brand for their spirits. The British Columbia government earlier this year released a "certified craft" designation for distilleries in the province. Distilleries have to apply for the "Craft Distillery" designation from the province's ABC. The requirements are: 1) All products must be fermented and distilled at the licensed distillery site using 100 per cent BC agricultural inputs; and 2) All products must be produced utilizing traditional spirit making techniques. The production of spirit cooler products or other highly processed products are not permitted, nor is the use of neutral grain spirits in the production of any products; and 3) The distillery has an annual production of finished products below 50,000 litres. "Finished products" is defined to mean bottled and ready to sell. Putting aside the 100% local inputs, I think it's a great definition. They also say when you apply for a craft designation, they'll combine distilleries that have any combined ownership/management. And less anyone doubts their seriousness, the ABC requires a "signed statutory declaration", along with extensive and periodic auditing and information sharing with the Federal Excise authorities. Edited to add this thought: I think the "USDA Organic" logo would be a good model. "TTB Distilled Craft" - awesome!
  10. TTB just issued a Circular on the use of social media in advertising beverage alcohol: http://www.ttb.gov/industry_circulars/archives/2013/13-01.html In short, they say that any media used by a TTB-regulated industry member that's intended to induce sales is subject to TTB regulations and must contain the standard required statements. But also - what's noteworthy to me is that TTB did not pick up DISCUS' "basic principle" of age affirmation. To me, this says that at some point TTB rule-writers thought about it, decided it was too inane, and dropped it. Good for them! Let's all now discontinue this particular charade (unless of your course your state says otherwise, which would be new to me).
  11. I don't share the view that it's "more" regulation if you aren't increasing the number of agency "adjudications" (in the broad admin-law sense; basically anything an agency does). For example, I wouldn't consider it to be a new burden if TTB gave the same weight to the words "Produced by" that "Distilled by" already enjoys. Entities that bottled others' spirits would write "Commissioned by [entity name]" instead.
  12. Congrats Mash!! Also available for retail here: http://www.federalspirits.com/collections/vendors?q=Appalachian+Mountain+Spirits
  13. I think the far more interesting question here is not what this means for ADI, but what the relationship between ACDA and DISCUS will be, given ACDA's stated purpose. The ACDA distilleries are also DISCUS affiliate members (haven't confirmed one by one, someone please chime in if there's not straight overlap). Will ACDA and DISCUS work lockstep, or will we see the same divergence as we see between the Beer Institute and the Brewers Association, currently butting heads over the the BEER Act and SmallBREW Act. Distillers will in short order have very clear signposts to evaluate ACDA. Presumably, for example, they support the "Distillery Excise Tax Reform Act of 2013" (HR 1806) that was introduced a few weeks ago. It cuts the excise tax for small distilleries to $2.70 a gallon for the first 60,000 gallons, and even gives strong direction to the IRS to promulgate regulations to ensure that no group that produces more than 60,000 gallons benefits. Mark Gorman of DISCUS has said, however, that his organization doesn't support an excise cut at this time. Rep. Tom Reed's office has worked with DISCUS on a draft spirits excise tax cut bill that, unlike last year's HR 777 and HR 1806, would apply to any producer's first 65,000 gallons, and also struck out the corporate control test for producer. I.e., a tax cut for all. If this bill did get introduced, we'd actually have a complete parallel to the competing beer bills. Could be that I missed it, but I'd love to hear each organization's view of HR 1806. Also will be interesting to see whether ACDA takes over other DISCUS functions, like being the intermediary for USDA's Market Access Program. Finally, my two cents. ADI will continue to be the focal point for the industry because it excels at bringing lots of people together, no matter where they're at. No barriers to entry. There is a need for some more organization around lobbying, but ACDA would need to broaden its base a lot. Until you have high overhead full time office space in DC and are in a position to hire in-house former committee staffers and put other advocacy shops on a payroll, you need to go the other route - hard core grass routes (think of the internet community and SOPA). Asking $500 a year from DSPs will amount to nothing unless you have an army of letter writers behind you.
  14. Hi Vintage, A bill hasn't yet been introduced for this Congressional session, but it will be, so stay tuned. The SmallBREW Act beer excise bill has been introduced: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-113hr494ih/pdf/BILLS-113hr494ih.pdf Here's your best bet to stay informed about legislative issues on the beer side: http://www.brewersassociation.org/pages/government-affairs/excise-taxes
  15. Ralph, the hearing isn't about whiskey or for any business in particular, it's a notice & comment period for all interested persons to comment on the proposed US-EU free trade agreement- the "Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership" (TTIP). ADI will be submitting a letter after feedback from members, similar to the one the organization submitted for the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) negotiations: http://goo.gl/dYb9i That letter goes into the issue a bit, and how it can be resolved.
×
×
  • Create New...