California Business and Professions Code Section 25000.2, known as the ’s Beer Brand Transfer Law, is in need of improvement, argues this SHL article. The statute sets out the mechanism for compensating a displaced wholesaler after a successor manufacturer obtains a brand.
Four principal changes are proposed. First, arbitration should be made the sole remedy available to the cancelled distributor, so as to eliminate redundant litigation. Second, the definition of “fair market” value should be modified to better track industry custom and practice, which typically values brands via a multiple of twelve month’s gross profit as the formula to determine fair market value. Third, payment deadlines should be flexible to better follow industry practice and harmonize with the appellate rights Lastly, the article urges consideration of a “baseball arbitration,” where the arbitrator picks one of the numbers submitted by the parties. SHL lawyers are well-versed in the statute, having served as lead counsel in [Maita and Mussetter decisions, as well as link to Pabst action