<\/a>Dogfish Head owner Sam Calagione. Photo courtesy grizzlygrowler.com<\/p><\/div>\n
In a correspondence from Glunz to Dogfish regarding Glunz\u2019s disappointment with the distribution termination, Glunz referenced a quote from Dogfish\u2019s owner, Sam Calagione, where he stated \u201cThe more retailers, distributors, and large industrial brewers consolidate, the more fragile the current growth momentum of the craft segment becomes.\u201d Glunz criticized Dogfish for abandoning \u201cthis mindset\u201d and turning \u201cagainst those people who stood by and supported\u201d Dogfish. Further, Glunz punctuated its feelings towards Dogfish by stating \u201c[Dogfish] is stepping against everything [it] always stood for.\u201d Dogfish responded to Glunz\u2019s characterizations as irrelevant to a determination of what Dogfish owes as reasonable compensation under the BIFDA for terminating the distribution agreement.<\/p>\n
The statements made by Glunz have no impact on a brand valuation assessment, and Dogfish correctly asserts they are irrelevant. Glunz\u2019s statements distract from the central issue of the dispute: to determine the value of reasonable compensation that Dogfish must pay. Glunz\u2019s statements reflect a belief that the beer industry, and in particular the craft beer segment, is better served by a multitude of independent brewers, distributors, and retailers, as opposed to an oligopolistic beer industry.<\/p>\n
One should note that small, family run distributors and large, national distributors both play an important role in helping to foster and to maintain the craft beer industry. Alignment by craft brewer with a large distributor does not necessarily signal a shift away from the principles and ideals associated with being a craft brewer. Nevertheless, any discussion between the parties concerning the fundamental structure of the beer industry is misguided. In the end, Glunz\u2019s statements may function as a divisive wedge, which could make it more difficult for the parties to communicate amicably and to reach a settlement.<\/p>\n
While both parties are appear firmly fixed on their current valuation assessments \u2013 $5 million and $9 million for Dogfish and Glunz, respectively, the discovery process may facilitate the opportunity for settlement by allowing both sides an opportunity to exchange information and assess the strength of the opposing party\u2019s position. As this case proceeds to litigation and new information is obtained, there will be a better opportunity to analyze the positions of each party and prospects for litigation.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":8479,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[21],"tags":[945,774],"yoast_head":"\n
Dogfish Head v Glunz; No Settlement In Sight<\/title>\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\t \n\t \n\t \n \n \n \n \n \n\t \n\t \n\t \n