The Texas Association of Business and McLane believe that the TABC’s erroneous interpretation of the law and inconsistent licensing practices clearly violate the protections afforded to all businesses by the U.S. Constitution. This lawsuit was filed to force the TABC to apply the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Code in a fair, consistent and legal manner. For more information about why we filed this suit, see Case Overview.
For an explanation of the TABC’s so-called One Share Rule, see One Share Rule Explained.
The TABC is out-of-step with other states that operate under a three tier system. For example, in New York, Maryland, Arkansas, Kansas, Kentucky and Michigan, companies are prohibited from having interests across more than one tier only if they control or influence the activities of businesses in more than one tier.
In the last year, over 40 manufacturers, distributors and retailers with overlapping ownership had over 2,500 permits approved or renewed by the TABC. The TABC’s application of Texas alcohol law defies common sense as the majority of alcohol manufacturers and retailers have some overlapping ownership with businesses in other tiers.
No, the Texas Association of Business and McLane support the three-tier system. Coupled with provisions against tied houses, the system protects the open marketplace by affording all companies within each individual tier the same legal access to companies within each of the other tiers. That said, the TABC is not applying the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Code in a fair, consistent or legal manner.
In the course of defending a lawsuit brought by the convenience store chain OXXO, the TABC testified that the agency believes it is illegal for any person to own even a single share of stock in more than one tier (the so-called One Share Rule). To learn more about the OXXO case, see Related Cases.
Yes. To learn more about these cases, see Related Cases.
The Texas Association of Business and McLane believe that the TABC’s erroneous interpretation of the law and inconsistent licensing practices clearly violate the protections afforded to all businesses by the U.S. Constitution.
The companies that are the subject of these protest letters are just a few of many companies for which the TABC continually approves permits, despite the fact that the companies violate the so-called One Share Rule. To be clear, McLane disagrees with the One Share Rule, but if the TABC insists on having the rule, it must enforce it evenhandedly against all entities, rather than selectively against entities such as McLane and OXXO.