CLG Industry News

Updated Website and Bios

Sat, 21 Apr 2012 12:56:11 -0400

Check out the firm’s updated Bio’s positioning our firm to be a full service firm for the Beverage Alcohol and Hospitality Industry.

http://christopouloslaw.com/about

Another Bad Decision for the Hospitality Industry

Mon, 20 Dec 2010 12:30:14 -0500

Koehler v. Illinois Liquor Control Commission,

Docket No. 2-09-1094 (Filed Nov. 18, 2010)

Recently, the Illinois Appellate Court affirmed a revocation of an off premise liquor license at a gas station for three liquor to minor violations pursuant to sting operations in McHenry County. The case chronology is important:

License Issued: April 8, 2007

First Violation: December 13, 2007

Second Violation: December 27, 2007

On June 3, 2008

Agreed to fines for fist two violations

$500 and $1500 respectively

Third Violation: July 16, 2008

The Illinois Liquor Control Commission reversed the local’s order on revocation down to a thirty (30) day suspension. The trial court affirmed, but the Appellate Court AFFIRMED the local’s order of revocation.

Please feel free to call us for more detail on this decision.

New ILCC Happy Hour Interpretations

Mon, 20 Dec 2010 12:26:11 -0500

The Illinois Liquor Control Commission has issued a new interpretation of its Happy Hour provisions, which both the City and the State enforce. Follow the link to view the changes. Feel free to call us with any questions.

http://www.state.il.us/lcc/RevisedTPP-22.pdf

New ILCC Happy Hour Interpretations

Mon, 20 Dec 2010 12:23:15 -0500

New ILCC Happy Hour Interpretations:

Illinois Supreme Court issues adverse decision to Beverage Alcohol Industry

Mon, 13 Dec 2010 15:42:31 -0500

In, Simmons v. Homatas, 236 Ill.2d 459 (2010), the Plaintiff administrators filed suit against, among others, On Stage Productions, Inc., the operator of a gentleman’s club (the “Club”), after an intoxicated patron was involved in an accident that killed the Plaintiffs’ decedents. The Club did not serve alcohol, but allowed patrons to bring their own alcohol. On the night of the accident, John Homatas and John Chiariello arrived at the Club around 9:00 p.m. The men brought with them a fifth of vodka. Over the next two hours the men poured several drinks and by 11:00 p.m. were visibly intoxicated.

After employees of the Club discovered Homatas vomiting in the bathroom, the employees ejected both men, and instructed the valet service to bring Homatas’ car to the front. The employees than placed Homatas in his in the drivers side of the car, and instructed him to leave the Club’s premises. Approximately fifteen minutes later, Homatas collided with a vehicle driven by April Simmons. The collision resulted in the death of Chiariell, Simmons, and Simmons unborn daughter. Representatives of the decedents’’ estates then brought suit, alleging both common law negligence and liability under the Dramshop Act.

The Club filed a motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs’ common law claims. In ruling on this motion, the Circuit Court identified two questions of law suitable for interlocutory appeal. The questions were accepted by the Supreme Court. The questions reviewed were: 1) Whether the Club, as a business operator who is not subject to the Dramshop Act, owed a duty of unreasonable risk of harm to a business invitee Chiariello under the specific circumstances of this case; and 2) whether the Club, as a business operator who is not subject to the Dramshop Act, owed a duty of ordinary care to the Simmons Plaintiffs under the specific circumstances of this case. The Supreme Court answered both questions in the affirmative.

In its ruling, the Supreme Court affirmed that it is well established under Illinois common law that no liability is imposed on a person who gives or sells alcohol to another person who later harms a third party while intoxicated. It also affirmed that the Dramshop Act imposes liability only on those persons officially engaged in the business of selling liquor in the State of Illinois. Under these established principles, it was evident that the Club was not subject to liability under the Dramshop Act.

The Club sought to extend this limit on the common law, arguing that the Dramshop Act further acts to preempt any other liability that resulted from Homatas’ intoxication. The Supreme Court did not agree. The Supreme Court found that based on the special circumstances of this case, a common law negligence claim is not preempted by the Dramshop Act.

The special circumstances addressed here are unrelated to the service or consumption of alcohol. Instead, the special circumstances involve the affirmative actions taken by the Defendant after the person became intoxicated, and the Supreme Court specifically states that the Defendant’s liability in this matter does not arise from the service of alcohol. Indeed, the Club’s potential liability arose following the series of actions taken by the Club’s employees in response to discovering Homatas intoxicated and vomiting in the bathroom. Following this discovery, employees allegedly ejected Homatas from the club, placed Homatas into his vehicle, and required him to leave the premises. The Supreme Court concluded that, by determining Homatas to be intoxicated and ejecting him for his level of intoxication, the Club acquired a duty not to encourage and assist Homatas in the tortuous conduct of driving while intoxicated. Thus, it is not the act of ejecting Homatas from the Club for his level of intoxication that creates liability, but the combination of ejecting Homatas for his level of intoxication and requiring him to leave the premises after placing him in his car that creates negligence liability.

The Supreme Court went on to affirm that restaurants, parking lot attendants or social hosts are not required to monitor all their patrons and guests to determine whether they are intoxicated. In fact, the Court specifically stated that had Homatas left on his own, and the Club had merely failed to prevent him from leaving while intoxicated, no duty to protect Chiarelli or Simmons would arise absent some special relationship. Ultimately, as discussed above, the Supreme Court found that the allegation that the Club, after determining Homatas to be intoxicated on its own volition, actively participated in or encouraged Homatas’ tortious conduct was enough for the case to survive a motion to dismiss.

ILCC Notice to License Holders on Sale of Caffeinated Alcoholic Beverages

Mon, 13 Dec 2010 15:30:54 -0500

On Friday December 3, 2010, the Illinois Liquor Control Commission issued the following notice to Illinois license holders:

Notice to License Holders on the Sale of “Joose”, “Max”, “Four Loko”

Within the past few weeks, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration issued warning letters to two Illinois non-resident dealers, United Brands and Phusion Projects, which stated that their trademarked caffeinated alcoholic beverages, Joose, Max (United) and Four Loko (Phusion) are adulterated or unsafe for consumption. As a result of the FDA warning letters, the Federal Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) issued a statement that the aforementioned brands of alcoholic liquor are mislabeled because they are adulterated.

Neither the FDA nor the TTB has taken any immediate enforcement action against the sale of these products other than to issue warning letters to the manufacturers. The manufacturers of these products have indicated that, as a result of the federal government actions, they will reformulate their products to make them safe for consumption.

Therefore, in light of these developments, the Illinois Liquor Control Commission makes the following statement:

1. Based upon the actions of the FDA and TTB, the Commission strongly recommends that retailers discontinue the sale of the above mentioned products to consumers. Continuing to sell adulterated and mislabeled products may increase the risk of civil liability if it is proven that the consumption of these products caused public harm.

2. Because the TTB has determined said products are mislabeled, distributors should not continue purchasing these products until they have been properly reformulated to meet FDA standards and the new products have been registered by the ILCC.

3. While the Commission does not mandate that retailers return said products or distributors accept their return, the Commission will not consider the voluntary return of these products for cash or credit as an illegal return or consignment sale. However, if a distributor accepts a return from one retailer, then the distributor must accept a return from all other retailers who request return. All returns and credits and reasons for such should be properly documented on a written invoice.

4. While this statement does not apply to the sale of any other caffeinated alcoholic beverages other than those specifically mentioned in this statement, all license holders are on notice that future federal, state and local government actions may prohibit the immediate sale and distribution of all other similar products. Therefore, a purchaser of similar products may be at risk of being prohibited from selling the same and purchase at their own risk.

For further questions on this issue, please feel free to contact the Christopoulos Law Group at 312-587-7594

Conditional Approval for Tavern and Package Goods Licenses

Thu, 29 Jul 2010 09:19:06 -0400

City Passes Changes To Liquor Laws That Allow For Conditional Approval of More Types of Liquor Licenses

Mayor’s Press Office 312.744.3334

Efrat Stein, Department of Busness Affairs & Consumer Protection (BACP) 312.744.5365

Today, the Chicago City Council approved an amendment that will allow businesses applying for a Tavern or Packaged Goods liquor license to obtain conditional approval on applications.

The change will benefit the business community and support businesses investing in new construction or expanding by now allowing applicants of Tavern or Packaged Good liquor licenses to take advantage of the conditional approval process.

Before the change, the law only allowed businesses applying for a Consumption On Premises Incidental Activity liquor license to apply for conditional approval and applies to businesses such as a restaurants, hotels, theaters or bowling alleys.

The conditional approval process benefits a business owner planning on constructing a new building, or expanding by allowing the owner to submit a liquor license application before any money is spent on new construction.

The liquor application process proceeds on its normal Local Liquor Control Commission (LLCC) approval process, including sending notice to the registered voters, local alderman and police commander. In addition the application
documents are reviewed and a criminal back ground check is conducted.

If approved, the applicant is given one year from the date of approval to complete the construction and pass all inspections by the Department of Business Affairs and Consumer Protection and departments of Health, Buildings and Fire. Under this process, the applicant has the comfort and benefit of knowing that he or she has been approved for a liquor license prior to spending money on an expensive build out.

If the conditional approval is denied at the LLCC stage, the applicant is made aware of the reasons for denial. The applicant can then decide whether or not proceed with the application or appeal the denial before having to invest any
money for construction of the new building.

The amendment will put an end to applicants applying for Tavern and Packaged Goods Liquor licenses and being forced to complete an expensive build out of a new premises with the worry that the money spent on the construction will be
wasted if a liquor license is not approved.

THIS ARTICLE APPEARED ON CITYOFCHICAGO.ORG

PLEASE CALL THE CHRISTOPOULOS LAW GROUP WITH ANY QUESTIONS.

Christopoulos Law Group Services

Fri, 18 Dec 2009 14:51:00 -0500

Christopoulos Law Group, LLC is a full service firm for the Beverage Alcohol and Hospitality Industry. In addition to regulatory matters, CLG has experience in handling partnership disputes, minority shareholder rights matters, commercial lease disputes and many other commercial matters. In addition, CLG is experienced in counseling business in complying with State of Illinois, City of Chicago and other regulatory requirements applicable to the Beverage Alcohol Industry.

For further information, feel free to contact Dimitrios Christopoulos at 312-587-7594 or email him at dimitri@christopouloslaw.com.

Unlicensed internet wine sellers warned in California

Thu, 25 Jun 2009 12:17:46 -0400

The California Alcoholic Beverage Commission issued a warning with regard to unlicensed wine sellers on the internet. A link to the article about the warning is below, and you can view the actual warning through a link at the end of the article.

http://www.winesandvines.com/template.cfm?section=news&content=65546&htitle=California%20Warns%20Internet%20Wine%20Sellers

If you have any questions regarding this article, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Social Networking Sites

Fri, 19 Jun 2009 09:12:14 -0400

I had the privilege and the pleasure of attending the national meeting of the National Conference of State Liquor Administrators this past week in Nashville, TN. One of the often discussed topics at this conference and others like it is the proliferation of general or targeted adverstising on twitter, myspace, facebook and even youtube by all tiers of the Beverage Alcohol and Hospitality Industry. Regulators nation wide are taking note of the existence of the advertising on these sites. One example specifically mentioned during the conference was a video posted on youtube which documented several bars in Indiana which were easy to get into for minors. I thought this was an interesting example. Those estabshlisments were likely subjected to compliance checks and most likely did not prefer to be the receipients such advertising. Business should be aware that with the advent of video posting from cell phones, most anything in public view could end up on youtube or a similar site. If you have any questions regarding this post or any others, feel free to contact us.

ILCC Newsletter

Mon, 15 Jun 2009 18:37:00 -0400

Follow this link to the Illinois Liquor Control Commission’s Summer Newsletter http://www.state.il.us/lcc/DOCS/Summer09web.pdf This Newsletter provides valuable information for all tiers of the Beverage Alcohol and Hospitality Industry, and is an execellent resource for education.

Please feel free to contact us with any questions about the materials in the Newsletter.

"Live DJ" in the City of Chicago

Fri, 12 Jun 2009 08:57:59 -0400

The City of Chicago Department of Business and Consumer Protection has been issuing citations to establishments who have a DJ and which have an occupancy of more than 100 persons. The City claims that this is a “live” performance and thus, the establishment is required to have a PPA license.

We have handled several of these matters. Please feel free to contact us if you would like more information.

New City Department Regulates Liquor

Thu, 11 Jun 2009 08:37:53 -0400

The City Department which regulates liquor and all other business licenses is now the Deparment of Business and Consumer Protection/Local Liquor Control Commission. The Department of Business Affairs & Licensing merged with the Department of Consumer Protection in January of 2009. The Commissioner of the new department, or DCAP, is now Norma Reyes, who previously was the Commissioner of the Department of Consumer Protection.

Welcome

Wed, 10 Jun 2009 17:50:56 -0400

Welcome to the Industry section of our website. Here, we will post news and information relevant to the Beverage Alcohol & Hospitality Industry. We hope you will follow it.

Thank you.

Dimitrios G. Christopoulos