Sam's gets fined, must empty warehouse

Illinois liquor distribution laws make no sense to me. I personally think they should challenge them in court in order to stick it to people like Wirtz, Jackson and the other distributors who use clout to get laws passed that force businesses into using them. Whatever happened to the Free Market ?

http://www.suntimes.com/output/business ... ine16.html

Sam's Wine & Spirits, the nation's largest wine retailer, will pay $300,000 and shut its Chicago store for three days as part of a settlement with the state for violating Illinois liquor laws.

The fine, the largest leveled by the Illinois Liquor Control Commission, comes after a two-year investigation into Sam's business practices, including the illegal operation of a warehouse, illegal use of a third-party marketing company and its sales of alcoholic beverages to retail liquor licensees.

The retailer will close Jan. 1-3 and empty its 1760 N. Kingsbury warehouse of alcoholic beverages by May 31, as part of the agreement.

....

tem wrote:Illinois liquor distribution laws make no sense to me. I personally think they should challenge them in court in order to stick it to people like Wirtz, Jackson and the other distributors who use clout to get laws passed that force businesses into using them. Whatever happened to the Free Market ?

But Tem, the Wirtz' need all that money to keep acquiring excellent players and maintaining the great winning tradition of Chicago's very own 'original six' Blackhawks...

...

Antonius

This enrages me.

Where is it written that certain corporations have a right to do business? Why should Sam's be punished for satisfying their customers?

Sam's is wonderful and quite a resource. Now they won't be able to stock thousands of different wines.

This is a big FU to the crooks that run our state.

AngrySarah wrote:

Where is it written that certain corporations have a right to do business?

Sam's violated the law. Even though we might not agree with certain laws. Lawbreakers still have to pay the price.

The taxes collected on wholesale liquor sales are different then you or I would pay at the retail counter. Many people don't understand that alcohol costs more to the bar or restaurant than to a person at a retail location.

For instance, a bottle of liquor that costs you about $14.99 at Jewel will cost over $20 wholesale to a bar or restaurant. In my opinion, the real criminals are the establishments who were using Sam's as a supplier. Those individuals were the ones not paying the extra tax dollars. Unfortunately, Sam's still broke the rules and has to pay the price.

Flip

This is a big FU to the crooks that run our state.

OMG I just have to say that it would be harder to find bigger crooks/skeezeballs than the people that run Sam's (the Rosens).

And a $300,000 fine and being closed on the slowest three days of the year is a slap on the wrist.

Actually, I don't think Sam's can be held legally responsible for selling to other retailers (although I am sure it happens). Even if a known retailer shops at Sam's, there is no way to know if the purchase is for resale and not personal consumption. The real issue is whether or not Sam's is warehousing liquor. The law that applies to that was pretty much written by a few distributors that wanted to maintain their monopolistic control over the Illinois wholesale liquor market. The reason restaurants and bars pay more for booze, is not just because of taxes, it is also because of unfair and anti-competitive business practices implemented by certain distributors under the auspices of their political toadies.

Interesting. I'm not sure I understand the prohibition on "warehousing alcohol," but...I'm a member of Iron Horse's wine club, and just yesterday received the following email:

Dear Corral Club Members,

We have found a treasure trove of Iron Horse Thomas Road Pinot Noir – two vintages – both 2000 and 2001, which somehow got lost in a Chicago warehouse. These are our most highly rated wines and we have been sold out of them here at the winery for over a year. I wanted to personally let you know about this find as Corral Club members always come first in our mind. To order, please contact Sam's on Marcey St. in Chicago, Illinois. The California wine buyer and a great contact there is Mark Pucylowski. He can be reached at 312 664 4394 x456 or [email protected]. I was so excited to find this for you.

[It goes on to say more unrelated to Sam's and the current topic of discussion. BTW, while Iron Horse is best known for its sparkling wines, it makes some great still wines, and the the Pinot Noir mentioned here is absolutely terrific.]

Sounds like the distributor found it in their warehouse and sold it to Sam's. From what I understand, distributors are allowed to have warehouses, it's just retail establishments that can't.

Ms.Paris wrote:

This is a big FU to the crooks that run our state.

OMG I just have to say that it would be harder to find bigger crooks/skeezeballs than the people that run Sam's (the Rosens).

How about Bill Wirtz, who is clearly pushing the political buttons in this prosecution and who was well-known to be the ghost writer the absurd anti-free-market distribution laws around here that make it illegal for producers to choose their own distributor or switch to a new one without permission from Wirtz's friend's in government.
And exactly what rationale besides giving more market power to Wirtz could there be for prohibiting a retail outlet from storing their excess stock in another location? That law exist solely for Wirtz's benefit, because its designed to reduce to quantities retailers can purchase, thus driving up the price retailers pay and the profits for distributors.

"they have until may 31 to empty their warehouse of alcoholic beverages..." can anyone clarify what this means? is it liquor, wine, all of the above? are they permanently keeping it empty? is the "warehouse" different than their "store" on kingsbury?

i haven't shopped at sam's in a few months... the last few times i had been there, i noticed that just about everything was higher priced. not just $1 or so, but sometimes $5 or $6 on the same bottles.

i asked one of the sales people (whom I always talk to anyway when i'm there...). he explained to me wine prices in general have been going up steadily, but more importantly that the management had gotten into some legal trouble, and they were "doing things illegaly before" ... so now that they were doing everything by the books their prices were higher. he also mentioned that a lot of the management had been fired as a result of their legal mishaps. a few weeks after that, I saw something in the paper about sam's getting into legal trouble, but IIRC that article was in reference to one of the suburban stores...

what i now don't understand... even if they are doing things "by the books" now, how can they still not be as competively priced on certain things?

The short answer is that they were getting massive kickbacks from distributors for product placement and other things. Even if some of the management were fired, the Rosens, who directed them, are still there.

Their warehouse is behind the store, about 100 yards away.

Well, maybe now they can fill all the vacant retail space at their recently-opened Highland Park store. Last time I was there, the selection was absolutely awful.

=R=

The law that I really hate is the one that says an underaged supermarket cashier can't ring up alcohol. I understand not letting minors work in liquor stores or bars, but not letting a minor simply wave a bottle over the scanner in a supermarket checkout line is just dumb. It's not like they are drinking the darn thing. Some places used to let the customer scan the liquor themselves, but I guess they got into trouble for that. Now you always have to wait for some manager to come over and scan the item.

chgoeditor wrote:Interesting. I'm not sure I understand the prohibition on "warehousing alcohol," but...I'm a member of Iron Horse's wine club, and just yesterday received the following email:

Dear Corral Club Members,

We have found a treasure trove of Iron Horse Thomas Road Pinot Noir – two vintages – both 2000 and 2001, which somehow got lost in a Chicago warehouse. These are our most highly rated wines and we have been sold out of them here at the winery for over a year. I wanted to personally let you know about this find as Corral Club members always come first in our mind. To order, please contact Sam's on Marcey St. in Chicago, Illinois. The California wine buyer and a great contact there is Mark Pucylowski. He can be reached at 312 664 4394 x456 or [email protected]. I was so excited to find this for you.

Sam does terrible things to smaller producers' wines. We know someone who won't send his wine to Illinois distributors. He'll sell if you are on his list, otherwise what normally goes to Illinois goes to Ohio. Sams stuck his wine on a shelf in a corner, no signage, no nothing, while having big promotions on big producers' wines. Eventually their wines ended up in the "end of" bin, sold well below market cost, which drove their prices down everywhere, since Sam's sells over the internet. Why bother to buy a small producer no one knows if you plan to do nothing with it? Leave it for someone else to buy and promote.

Folks,

Let's tone done the ire for Sam's, this thread is getting ever so slightly out of hand.

Enjoy,
Gary

Let's not forget:
There's always Wine Discount Center. Admittedly, not much of a non-wine selection but the staff is FAR friendlier and the prices are usually cheaper.

1350 Old Skokie Road, Highland Park
(847)831-1049
Monday - Friday 10-7
Saturday 9-5
Sunday 12-5

1826 N. Elston Avenue, Chicago
(773)489-3454
Monday - Friday 10-7
Saturday 9-5
Sunday 12-5

1170 McHenry Road, Buffalo Grove
(847)478-0300
Monday - Friday 10-7
Saturday 9-5
Sunday 12-5

7714 W. Madison, Forest Park
(708)366-2500
Monday - Saturday 9-9
Sunday 10-6

One time I was in Sam's and a woman asked the guy for a recommendation for a really nice wine from the Schmengity-Fengity region with low tannins and lots of razzafrazz, and the guy patiently explained about the new owners of Domaine Schmutzi, and his trip to Casa Rickelfritz last fall for the stem polishing, and the wonderful things they were doing at Maison Hungadunga... and then she said "I was looking to spend about five bucks."

So he picked up a bottle of Romanee-Conti, and clubbed her to death, screaming "Trader Joe's! Two buck Chuck for you!"

Anyway, the Sam's guys, yeah, they're in their own world sometimes, but after that I understood a little better how they got there. I find if you walk in there clueless and say "I want a good wine, preferably red, though white's okay too," they will treat you like the clueless mofo you are. But narrow it down just a little, educate yourself just a little in advance about a region-- I don't mean memorizing whole chapters of Parker, I mean knowing a couple of wines you might want and why, thanks to Wine Spectator or whatever-- and ask them intelligent questions, they actually respond to the chance to speak knowledgably and will be very helpful and even friendly.

Though dammit, I miss The Wine Crier.

leek wrote:
Sam does terrible things to smaller producers' wines. We know someone who won't send his wine to Illinois distributors. He'll sell if you are on his list, otherwise what normally goes to Illinois goes to Ohio. Sams stuck his wine on a shelf in a corner, no signage, no nothing, while having big promotions on big producers' wines. Eventually their wines ended up in the "end of" bin, sold well below market cost, which drove their prices down everywhere, since Sam's sells over the internet. Why bother to buy a small producer no one knows if you plan to do nothing with it? Leave it for someone else to buy and promote.

Well, the big producers probably pay for those promotions.
When it comes to beer, Sam's is an assett to small producers, since they are one of (if not THE) only ones' willing to carry many small producers. No other retailer in Northern Illinois has even half of the selection of Sam's, and most of the difference is composed of small producers and rare seasonals. And Sam's is cheaper (still) than just about every other Chicago beer retailer on the same beer products. Which also means Sam's is the assett to consumers in terms of cost, variety, and access to otherwise unattaible small producers. For educated consumers willing to try new things and/or do the research themselves on a new product, Sam's is a huge assett in the marketplace.


Again, in terms of beer, it is the distributors who are the enemy of small producers. The distribution laws (written by Wirtz, the biggest distributor) eliminate free-market competition and don't allow the small producers to work out their own distribution deals. So, many of them just forget Illinois altogether. Some of the highest quality most critically acclaimed beers around the country including some from CA are available in WI, IN, OH, MI, and all the way on the East coast, but don't make it to the huge Chicago market, because of regulations that benefit only the existing dominant distribution companies.

From what I have read so far, the violations Sam's has been accussed of have probably benefitted consumers and probably some small producers.


GWiv, this is an inherently political issue, but an important one for culinary consumers. Nobody is being uncivil to other LTH members.
It seems like there should be a place somewhere in this forum for a conversation on this issue.

griffin wrote:GWiv, this is an inherently political issue, but an important one for culinary consumers. Nobody is being uncivil to other LTH members.
It seems like there should be a place somewhere in this forum for a conversation on this issue.

Griffin,

Upthread someone refers to the people running Sam's as "crooks/skeezeballs" which seems crossing the line, at least to me.

Long experience, years prior to LTH, has taught me religion and politics are a sure fire recipe for an out of control flame war.

LTHForum Posting Guidelines

Enjoy,
Gary

So they must empty their warehouse of alcoholic beverages - to where must they empty them? And shouldn't this lead to a warehouse liquidation sale of some kind? How do I get in on it?

Keep eating,
J. Ro

griffin wrote:Some of the highest quality most critically acclaimed beers around the country including some from CA are available in WI, IN, OH, MI, and all the way on the East coast, but don't make it to the huge Chicago market, because of regulations that benefit only the existing dominant distribution companies.

Stone Brewing, for one.

griffin wrote:Some of the highest quality most critically acclaimed beers around the country including some from CA are available in WI, IN, OH, MI, and all the way on the East coast, but don't make it to the huge Chicago market, because of regulations that benefit only the existing dominant distribution companies.

I work for a beer distributor in the city and don't think it is the "dominant distribution companies" that are at fault for not getting the beer here. I hear probably 3-4 pitches a month from either new breweries/ suppliers. Unfortuately we can't take them all on and we have to decide what is best for our business. It is not like we are out looking to screw "the little guys". There are smaller distributors that focus on microbrews/imports that could do the distributing. I also don't know what laws benefit exsisting companies outside of the ones that prevent direct shipping. The direct shipping issue is completely different one that I think has more to do with taxes than anything else.

louisdog wrote: I also don't know what laws benefit exsisting companies outside of the ones that prevent direct shipping.

Direct shipping is certainly one, but here are a few more:

Only huge corporate brewers large enough to deliver their product to every an all wholesalers in IL are allowed to choose which carrier they use to deliver beer into the state. All other brewers must accept a carrier of the wholesalers choosing. Small producers cannot require that a distributor agree to a certain carrier as a criteria for an agreement.

Producers are not allowed to negotiate better deals for themselves, because they are prohibited from canceling or even modifying their existing agreement with distributors, unless they can prove in court that the distributor acting in bad faith and refused to honor some specific and "essential" part of the agreement. In other words, if another distributor offers them a better deal, they cannot switch or even renogiate their agreement with their existing distributor.

Once a brewer has an agreement with a distributor for one product, the distributor is free to refuse to carry any additional products by that brewer. The brewer has absolutely no recourse and cannot cancel or change their agreement or use another distributor in the region for these other products.

The Wearhouse law Sam's got busted for is another example. Retailers who can store extra stock in wearhouses can buy more product and reduce costs, thus saving their customers money as well. The prohibition that allows Wholesalers to wearhouse product, but not retailers seems to have no other legit justification than to put more profit into the wholesalers hands by costing retailers and end-consumers more.


There are some quality small distributors that deal with imports and small craft producers, and I'm sure these companies have little to do with the distribution laws, which were written by Wirtz and a couple big industry allies. However, the IL distribution laws give so much power to distributors over producers and consumers that many producers are wise not to enter a market where they don't have the power to negotiate a fair deal or change or alter an existing one. Not to mention that some producers are too small to be worth it to a distributor, and if they won't deal with the producer, the producer has no recourse and no means (such as self-distribution) to get their product to consumers who want it.


The Following book details the activities and laws lobbied by Wirtz, the largest distributor. The book only goes up to year 2000, but the story is more of the same since then.
Career Misconduct: The Story of Bill Wirtz's Greed, Corruption, and The Betrayal of Blackhawks Fans

Most of these laws were applied to beer back in '82 with the "Beer Industry Fair Dealing Act", and a cursory googling reveals how, unsurprisingly, there was a massive concentration of power and marketshare in the distribution industry in Chicago during 80's and 90's.

In 1999, a law passed that wass widely referred to as the "Bill Wirtz law" by most, including the media, because of his documented role in lobbying for it and contributing more than 300,000 to the legislators most strongly pushing it. This law strangled competition and neutered the power of producers and consumers of Wine and Liquor in the same ways that the '82 law did for beer.

The law was challenged by suppliers in 2000 and the FTC intervened by prevent enforcement. However, in 2001 Wirtz and 3 other major distributorships pushed similar but more constitutionally evasive bill and have successfully pushed others laws since. The '82 beer law still stands (apparently beer producers and consumers have less clout in protecting their rights than Wine and Liquor).

Having spoken to a few small beer producers who don't deal in IL and with other knowledgable people close to the industry about why we don't get
a number of beers that do go to smaller, nearby markets the answer always seems to be the absurdly anti-free market distribution laws.

Also, as of early April 2006 a new bill was being pushed that would force small IL wineries to go through one of the handful of distributors allowed to exist in the state. Previously, IL wineries could self-distribute, however out-of-state wineries could not (a restriction designed to benefit IL distributors). Recent court rulings in NY and MI have made it clear that this double standard won't hold up legally. Rather than benefit small producers and consumers by allowing everyone to self-distribute if they choose, thus increasing competition, the legislators have once again chosen the Wirtz-approved concept of "fairness", by forcing all producers in and out-of-state to use the distributor middle-men.

BTW: None of this is breaking news. It's all easily verifiable with a little googling. In fact, a couple years ago Chicago Public Radio did a piece on Wirtz and his push of this self-serving legislation. It talked about how when the '99 law was first proposed, legislators laughed and said it would be absurd to suggest that such a patently corrupt bill could pass. Then they apparently voted for it.

Griffin, I PM'ed you last night because you erroneously attibuted a quote to me in your posting from 8:01 p.m. CT on May 16. You still haven't corrected the quote attribution--which should be attributed to Leek--but you had time to post a lengthy diatribe against the Wirtz family. I'm sure it wasn't intentional, but since you ignored my PM, I'll now post my request here...please edit your post so I'm not the one attributed with saying, "Sam does terrible things to smaller producers' wines...."

Thanks.

All,

Let's remember to keep this on a civil and respectful tone.

This, like foie gras, is one of those topics where food meets politics and so politics sneaks in. The discussion of how politics affects liquor availability in Illinois is appropriate and should go on, but not if it gets out of control and goes to the level of more heat than light and personal attacks.

Thank you.

chgoeditor wrote:Griffin, ..please edit your post so I'm not the one attributed with saying, "Sam does terrible things to smaller producers' wines...."
.

Sorry Chgoeditor,

Leeks' name was there before yours, but when I chopped out your comments to which Leek was responding I left in your name as well. I went to edit it this morning (prior to my "diatribe"), but I didn't see the edit button and assumed too much time had passed for me to edit. Another site I use looks just like this one, but has the edit button at the bottom of the post and goes away after about an hour.

griffin wrote:
Also, as of early April 2006 a new bill was being pushed that would force small IL wineries to go through one of the handful of distributors allowed to exist in the state. Previously, IL wineries could self-distribute, however out-of-state wineries could not (a restriction designed to benefit IL distributors). Recent court rulings in NY and MI have made it clear that this double standard won't hold up legally. Rather than benefit small producers and consumers by allowing everyone to self-distribute if they choose, thus increasing competition, the legislators have once again chosen the Wirtz-approved concept of "fairness", by forcing all producers in and out-of-state to use the distributor middle-men.

I don't know much about the liquor side of things only beer. The state had to change its directs shipping rules on alcohol becuase of the Granholm decision by the Supreme Court, which basically made Illinois law unconstitutional.

Producers are not allowed to negotiate better deals for themselves, because they are prohibited from canceling or even modifying their existing agreement with distributors, unless they can prove in court that the distributor acting in bad faith and refused to honor some specific and "essential" part of the agreement. In other words, if another distributor offers them a better deal, they cannot switch or even renogiate their agreement with their existing distributor.

In what way do you mean that they can't negotiate better deals? I know that they can't just pull out of a distributor like you said, but a producer can still leave a distributor. If distributor A wants something that distributor B has A can purchase it from B. That does happen quite often.

The Wearhouse law Sam's got busted for is another example. Retailers who can store extra stock in wearhouses can buy more product and reduce costs, thus saving their customers money as well. The prohibition that allows Wholesalers to wearhouse product, but not retailers seems to have no other legit justification than to put more profit into the wholesalers hands by costing retailers and end-consumers more.

While I do agree that it is a stupid law, I don't see how it hurts most retailers and end-consumers. Distributors offer quanity discounts but almost every store has the space to purchase the minumum to get the biggest discount. If they are buying some to warehouse it and lock in the lower price, how much do you think of that savings is passed on to the customer. I would argue most of the money goes into the retailers pocket. Also to a lesser extent, with beer the distributor is also responsible for the freshness of a product and with most domestic beers that is 110 days from the time of brewing. What if an retailer warehouse too much and it goes out of date, then the distributors is paying the price for that when they have to pick up the beer and destroy it.

Not to mention that some producers are too small to be worth it to a distributor, and if they won't deal with the producer, the producer has no recourse and no means (such as self-distribution) to get their product to consumers who want it.

I agree with you and that is a problem.

The Following book details the activities and laws lobbied by Wirtz, the largest distributor

I will have to check out the book, but I just wanted to point out the Wirtz is by and far a liqour distributor and not beer distributor. There are different laws in regards to liquor and wine and as I said, I know very little about them.

louisdog wrote:I don't know much about the liquor side of things only beer. The state had to change its directs shipping rules on alcohol becuase of the Granholm decision by the Supreme Court, which basically made Illinois law unconstitutional.

Right, but the unconstitutional part was not direct shipping, it was the differential rules for in and out-of-state producers. When that ruling came down many naive Wine drinkers and beer drinkers applauded, thinking that States would have to allow out-of-state shipping just like they do for in-state producers, resulting in a more open market and greater access to variety. What they didn't count on was that lawmakers would remedy the inconsistency by doing just the opposite, eliminating in-state producers' ability to direct ship, thus further reducing consumer choice and
variety, especially to small producers.

In what way do you mean that they can't negotiate better deals? I know that they can't just pull out of a distributor like you said, but a producer can still leave a distributor.

The 1982 Beer Industry Fair Dealing Act states that "No brewer may cancel, fail to renew or otherwise terminate an agreement, unless [they have] good cause". And "good cause" requires that the brewers be able to prove in a court that the distributor "has failed to comply with essential and reasonable requirements imposed upon the wholesaler or affected party by the agreement."
This means that brewers must continue and renew their relationship with a distributor, unless they can prove that the distributor violated a specific and "essential" part of the agreement. They cannot choose to take their business elsewhere to get a better deal, change to someone who takes better care of their product, or moves their product more effectively, or is just easier to deal with, etc.. Also, since threat of taking one's business elsewhere is about the only leverage a producer has to negotiate a better agreement later on with their distributor, their inability to leave eliminates any plausible ability to even demand a better agreement due to changes in the market, etc.. BTW, the 1999 Wirtz law regarding wine and liquor used the same language but made the de-facto restriction on modifications to an existing agreement explicit, stating that producers cannot use a distributors refusal to renogiate as a basis for cancelation.

Furthermore, the law goes on to say that even when a brewer can achieve the high bar of proving "good cause", they must first attempt to arbitrate with the distributor before leaving, and when this fails they must give 3 months notice that they will leave. In which time, the distributor can choose to sue if he thinks the producer cannot prove "good cause" or cannot prove "a good faith effort to arbitrate".

If distributor A wants something that distributor B has A can purchase it from B. That does happen quite often.

Well sure, distributors are free to act in their best interest, and on occassion that may work to the producer’s best interest. Of the more than a dozen or so restrictions in this 1982 Bill, only 1 restricts what distributors can do. But what you are saying is that if a new distributor wants your account and is willing to pay off your old distributor, and your old distributor is willing to let you go to his competition, then you may change. Free at last!!! Even this scenario, obviously still gives all the power over your product to distributors, old and new.

If [retailers] are buying some to warehouse it and lock in the lower price, how much do you think of that savings is passed on to the customer. I would argue most of the money goes into the retailers pocket.

Sure, they are doing it for their own profit. But if they can offer lower prices as a result, they will sell more and make more profit still.
I don't know if Sam's prices were lower due to this wearhousing or any of their other "crimes", but I know that on 90% of the products I've been buying there over the past decade they had been lower than anyone else in town, and since this crackdown was in the works over the past year, their prices have increased at a notably faster rate (although so has fuel and everything else, so I won't assert causation there).

Also to a lesser extent, with beer the distributor is also responsible for the freshness of a product and with most domestic beers that is 110 days from the time of brewing. What if an retailer warehouse too much and it goes out of date, then the distributors is paying the price for that when they have to pick up the beer and destroy it.

I agree that's a valid concern, but not a justification for the law. With some exceptions, freshness usually matters with beer. But that is a concern for consumers and distributors to take up with the retailers in free market negotiations (if such things were allowed). What about brewers whose beer goes bad in the distributor’s wearhouse? From what I've read so far, the distributor has far more leverage with their retail accounts than the brewers have with the distributor in the same circumstance.
As for the Sam's issue, it may have been Wine and Liquor they were wearhousing, and freshness isn't so critical with Wine and Liquor (cue Steve Martin in The Jerk, "Waiter, Bring us some FRESH wine!!)

I little mood lightener

All that's happening here is that Sam's is being forced to follow the same laws that every other retailer in the state of Illinois must follow. Whether or not the laws are good for consumers is not the issue here, nor is who wrote the laws. The issue is that Sam's didn't abide by the laws, they got caught, and they are paying the price -- as did Binny's a couple years ago for similar violations.

I urge people to do some digging into this, it makes interesting reading...

Mark

The illegal use of the third party Skyline marketing company and the allegations that it extorted money from distributors, was probably what really brought the whole situation to the attention of state investigators more than the warehouse issue.

If you are in the wine/liquor business, the same stories would come up again and again from wholesalers/importers/wineries. When you hear the same story over and over from multiple people that you do business with (as well as trust and don't have problems with yourself), there must be something to them. If that wasn't enough evidence, for me, the Chicago Tribune article on 5/16/06 sealed the deal.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ ... 2587.story

From the article in the Chicago Tribune: Rosen maintained Monday that Skyline, which maintained its office in the store's building, had no direct ties to Sam's.

While Sam's admits no wrong doing as part of their settlement, it did acknowledge the state had evidence to substantiate some of its claims, according the the Chicago Tribune.

Crimes are usually solved when many people know about it and someone (especially an unlucky business partner) goes to the officials.

Many of the 'alleged' business practices financially affected other businesses that get no part of the state's fine. Sam's made a good deal (or they wouldn't have agreed to it).