1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

EASTERN DIVISION 

: 

HILL DISTRIBUTING COMPANY : Case No. 2:11-CV-706 

 : 

Plaintiff, : 

 : JUDGE ALGENON L. MARBLEY 

 v. : 

 : 

ST. KILLIAN IMPORTING CO., INC., : MAGISTRATE JUDGE DEAVERS 

 : 

Defendant. : 

 : 

OPINION AND ORDER

I. INTRODUCTION

 This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Hill Distributing Company’s (“Hill 

Distributing”) motion for a preliminary injunction. (Dkt. 2.) Hill Distributing seeks to enjoin 

Defendant St. Killian from terminating Hill Distributing’s franchise relationship with Carlsberg 

S/A, through which Hill Distributing is a wholesaler of Carlberg’s brands of beer (“the Brands”) 

in Ohio. For the reasons set forth below, the Motion is GRANTED. 

II. BACKGROUND

 Hill Distributing is an Ohio distributor of alcoholic beverages to retail permit holders in 

the state. It possesses franchise relationships with several manufacturers and for at least eight 

years, it has had the exclusive distribution rights to distribute Carlsberg’s products in Central 

Ohio. St. Killian is a Massachusetts corporation that is involved in the business of importing 

beer into the United States. 

Case: 2:11-cv-00706-ALM-EPD Doc #: 16 Filed: 09/07/11 Page: 1 of 11 PAGEID #: <pageID>
2

 Carlsberg, S/A (“Carlsberg”), is a Danish corporation that brews the Brands at issue. In 

2004, Carlsberg USA (“CUSA”) began importing the Brands into the United States. In 2009, 

Beverage Alliance began importing the brands instead of CUSA, and CUSA ceased to exist. 

 In March 2011, Beverage Alliance issued a Confidential Information Memorandum, 

offering to purchase, merge, or sell its import rights to or with another company. St. Killian 

submitted a bid to buy the rights, which was ultimately successful. 

 On June 23, 2011, St. Killian executed a Purchase and Sale Agreement (“P & S”) and a 

Bill of Sale with Beverage Alliance. Through the P & S, which was negotiated at arm’s length, 

St. Killian acquired importation and distribution rights to a number of beer brands for 

distribution within the United States, including the Carlsberg Brands at issue in this litigation. In 

exchange, St. Killian paid $1.9 million to Beverage Alliance and its creditors, and paid some of 

Beverage Alliance’s outstanding debt to Carlsberg. 

 Beverage Alliance notified Carlsberg of the termination of its relationship with the 

company, and confirmed that its rights to the Brands would cease when the Import Agreement 

between Carlsberg and St. Killian was executed. The Import Agreement became effective on 

June 24, 2011. 

 On August 1, 2011, Hill Distributing received a notice from St. Killian purporting to 

terminate Hill Distributing’s relationship with Carlsberg effective on July 27, 2011, pursuant to 

O.R.C. 1333.85. St. Killian requested that Hill Distributing provide financial statements for the 

past three years so that it could determine the fair market value of the Brands. 

III. LAW AND ANALYSIS

 In order to obtain a preliminary injunction, this Court balances the following four factors: 

“(1) whether the movant has shown a strong likelihood of success on the merits; (2) whether the 

Case: 2:11-cv-00706-ALM-EPD Doc #: 16 Filed: 09/07/11 Page: 2 of 11 PAGEID #: <pageID>
3

movant will suffer irreparable harm if the injunction is not issued; (3) whether the issuance of the 

injunction would cause substantial harm to others; and (4) whether the public interest would be 

served by issuing the injunction.” Overstreet v. Lexington-Fayette Urban Cnty. Gov’t, 305 F.3d 

566, 573 (6th Cir. 2002). 

A. Likelihood of Success 

 The first factor to consider is the moving party’s likelihood of success on the merits. In 

this case, Hill Distributing is likely to prevail, and thus this factor counsels in favor of granting 

their request for a preliminary injunction. 

1. Overview of the Ohio Alcoholic Beverages Franchise Act 

 The Ohio Alcoholic Beverages Franchise Act (“OABFA”) governs the franchise 

relationships between manufacturers and distributors of alcoholic beverages, including beer, 

within Ohio. Under § 1333.85 of the Act, a franchise cannot be terminated absent prior consent 

unless just cause exists and notice is provided. R.C. § 1333.85. Subsection (A) of § 1333.85 

lists three situations that always constitute just cause: (1) voluntary bankruptcy; (2) involuntary 

bankruptcy; or (3) loss of liquor permits. Subsection (B) of § 1333.85 lists four situations that 

never constitute just cause: (1) failure of a party to take action that would result in a violation of 

federal or state law; (2) restructuring, other than in bankruptcy, of a manufacturer’s business; (3) 

unilateral alteration of the franchise by a manufacturer for a reason unrelated to any breach of the 

franchise or violation of R.C. §§ 1333.82 and 1333.86; and (4) “a manufacturer’s sale, 

assignment, or other transfer of the manufacturer’s product or brand to another manufacturer 

over which it exercises control.” Subsection (C) of § 1333.85 governs how a manufacturer and 

distributor should deal with excess inventory in case of termination. 

Case: 2:11-cv-00706-ALM-EPD Doc #: 16 Filed: 09/07/11 Page: 3 of 11 PAGEID #: <pageID>
4

 Subsection (D) of § 1333.85 is an exception to the general rule requiring just cause. 

Under the terms of (D), if a successor manufacturer “acquires all or substantially all of the stock 

or assets of another manufacturer through merger or acquisition or acquires or is the assignee of 

a particular product or brand of alcoholic beverage from another manufacturer,” then it can 

terminate, via written notice, a previous manufacturer’s franchise agreements within 90 days of 

the date of the acquisition. R.C. § 1333.85(D). Upon termination, the “distributor shall sell and 

the successor manufacturer shall repurchase the distributor's inventory of the terminated or 

nonrenewed product or brand” at the “laid-out cost to the distributor including freight and 

cartage.” R.C. §§ 1333.85(C) and (D). The successor manufacturer must also compensate the 

distributor “for the diminished value of the distributor’s business that is directly related to the 

sale of the product or brand terminated.” R.C. § 1333.85(D). The value of directly related 

business includes, but is not limited to, “the appraised market value of those assets of the 

distributor principally devoted to the sale of the terminated . . . product or brand and the goodwill 

associated with that product or brand.” R.C. § 1333.85(D). 

2. Successor Manufacturer

 St. Killian does not argue that just cause existed, and it is clear that Hill Distributing did 

not consent. Instead, St. Killian argues that it is a successor manufacturer and thus entitled to 

terminate the franchise agreement pursuant to the exception in R.C. § 1333.85(D). St. Killian 

relies on R.C. § 1333.82(B), which defines a “manufacturer” as “a person, whether located in 

this state or elsewhere, that manufactures or supplies alcoholic beverages to distributors in this 

state.” R.C. § 1333.82(B). Because St. Killian supplies beer to distributors in Ohio, it argues, it 

qualifies as a manufacturer. See Dayton Heidelberg Distrib. Co. v. Vineyard Brands, Inc., 108 

F. Supp. 2d 859, 863 (S.D. Ohio 2000), aff’d 74 Fed. App’x 509, 512 (6th Cir. 2003) (finding that 

Case: 2:11-cv-00706-ALM-EPD Doc #: 16 Filed: 09/07/11 Page: 4 of 11 PAGEID #: <pageID>
5

a wine importer qualified as a manufacturer under R.C. §1333.82(B)). As it obtained the rights 

to distribute the Brands from the previous importer, Beverage Alliance, St. Killian urges it is thus 

a successor manufacturer under subsection (D). There are two flaws with this argument. First, 

the statute defines manufacturers, but not successor manufacturers, and thus total reliance on this 

definition would be misplaced. Second, this argument isolates subsection (D) from the 

remainder of the statute, and this Court has previously held that subsection (D) cannot be read in 

isolation, but must be considered in the context of the statute as a whole in order to avoid 

allowing conduct under subsection (D) that is prohibited under subsection (B). See InBev USA 

LLC v. Hill Distributing Corp., No. 2:05-cv-00298, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97423, at *18–19 

(April 3, 2006 S.D. Ohio). 

 Thus, in order to determine whether St. Killian is a “successor manufacturer,” a turn to 

the case law is required. In InBev, this Court found that the OABFA evidenced “a clear 

legislative intent to deny manufacturers the ability to terminate franchises due to corporate 

reorganizations or the shifting of brands among entities under common control.” InBev, 2006 

U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97423, at *19. In that case, InBev, the Plaintiff, was formed through the 

merger of several importers: Labatt, BNA, and Latrobe. Prior to the merger, each of the three 

importers had independent distribution channels for their brands. In an effort to consolidate after 

the merger, InBev attempted to terminate some of the franchise agreements held by the 

individual companies under § 1333.85(D) because it considered itself a “successor 

manufacturer.” The distributor (Hill, the Plaintiff in this case) refused to accept the terminations. 

In the subsequent litigation, this Court held that the merger was not an arms-length transaction, 

but effectively a restructuring; no consideration was paid, no products changed ownership 

control, and all brands remained under the common control of the European brewer. Id. at *17–

Case: 2:11-cv-00706-ALM-EPD Doc #: 16 Filed: 09/07/11 Page: 5 of 11 PAGEID #: <pageID>
6

20. A manufacturer can only rely on § 1333.85(D) “when there is a change in ownership and 

control of brands through an arms-length merger or acquisition.” Id. at *22. Thus, § 

1333.85(B)(2) prevented the termination, and InBev could not use § 1333.85(D) to eviscerate 

the protections the Ohio legislature had provided in the statute. 

 In essence, InBev established a rule that an entity can only qualify as a “successor 

manufacturer” under subsection (D) if one of the situations in subsection (B) does not apply. 

This Court followed this general rule in Beverage Distributors, Inc. v. Miller Brewing Company, 

--- F.Supp.2d ----, 2011 WL 1113282 (S.D. Ohio 2011). In Beverage Distributors, this Court 

found that, after they merged, two beer companies could not terminate franchise agreements 

under subsection (D) because the same brewers continued to exercise control over the brands at 

issue. Thus, the situation fell within (B)(4), and (D) could not apply. Id. at *13. 

 Before determining if (D) applies to the case at issue, this Court must determine whether 

any of the situations described in (B) apply. If so, then St. Killian is limited by the general rule 

requiring just cause, and cannot use (D) to terminate the franchise relationship with Hill 

Distributing. As stated above, there are four situations under (B) which never constitute just 

cause and preclude the application of (D): (1) failure of a party to take action that would result 

in a violation of federal or state law; (2) restructuring, other than in bankruptcy, of a 

manufacturer’s business; (3) unilateral alteration of the franchise by a manufacturer for a reason 

unrelated to any breach of the franchise or violation of R.C. §§ 1333.82 and 1333.86; and (4) “a 

manufacturer’s sale, assignment, or other transfer of the manufacturer’s product or brand to 

another manufacturer over which it exercises control.” R.C. § 1333.85(B). After considering all 

four possibilities, (B)(2) applies in this case. Effectively, what has occurred is a restructuring of 

Carlsberg’s business. It maintains control of its Brands, but those brands now have a different 

Case: 2:11-cv-00706-ALM-EPD Doc #: 16 Filed: 09/07/11 Page: 6 of 11 PAGEID #: <pageID>
7

importer into the United States. Carlsberg continues to brew the beers, own the intellectual 

property, and approve the marketing campaigns. Additionally, it may terminate St. Killian under 

various circumstances and obtain a new importer. In essence, this is a restructuring of 

Carlsberg’s importation arrangement, although its ownership and control of the Brands has never 

wavered. A final determination of this issue will require more factual development, but the 

Court cannot say at this time that R.C. § 1333.85(D) applies. At present, R.C. § 1333.85(B)(2) is 

most applicable. 

 Nevertheless, there are some issues that give the Court pause. On the one hand, this case 

is similar to InBev because the general situations are the same: a brewer obtained a new importer, 

which then attempted to terminate a franchise agreement. On the other, this case is markedly 

different because, unlike the paper merger at issue in InBev, St. Killian bought the rights to 

import the Brands from Beverage Alliance. There are two reasons, however, that this distinction 

is unpersuasive to the Court. First, Carlsberg had to approve of St. Killian as its new importer. 

Thus, it continued to maintain control over its Brands and was effectively reorganizing its 

business structure. Second, the policy rationale behind OABFA supports finding in favor of Hill 

Distributing in this case. The purpose of the Act is to “protect distributors from certain practices 

of beverage manufacturers.” Beverage Distrib., Inc v. Miller Brewing Co., Nos. 2:08-cv-827, 

2:08-cv-931; 2:08-cv-1112, 2:08-cv-1131, 2:09-cv-0022, 2009 WL 1542730, at *5 (S.D. Ohio 

June 2, 2009). In particular, Ohio has recognized that distributors invest significant time and 

resources into promoting their products. If manufacturers could unilaterally terminate their 

agreements, these distributors would be exposed to great harm. Id. This Act is designed “‘to 

remedy the lack of equal bargaining power between Ohio’s alcoholic beverage wholesalers and 

out-of-state beverage manufacturers.’” Beverage Distrib., 2011 WL 1113282, at * 12 (quoting 

Case: 2:11-cv-00706-ALM-EPD Doc #: 16 Filed: 09/07/11 Page: 7 of 11 PAGEID #: <pageID>
8

Esber Beverage Co. v. LaBatt USA Operating Co., NO. 2009-cv-03142 at 8 (Stark Cnty. Ohio 

Common Please Dec. 1, 2009)). These policy concerns militate in favor of Hill Distributing in 

this case. 

 In sum, because the Brands have never changed hands, and remain under the ownership 

and control of Carlsberg, Hill Distributing has a strong likelihood of success on the merits. The 

change of importer is likely a business rearrangement, and thus St. Killian may not qualify as a 

“successor manufacturer” under R.C. § 1333.85(D). 

B. Irreparable Harm 

 The second factor to consider is the irreparable harm that may result to the moving party. 

In this case, the Brands make up only a small part of Hill Distributing’s portfolio, but Hill argues 

that they are nevertheless critical to their branding and marketing efforts. 

 Irreparable harm results when there is no adequate remedy at law. One kind of 

irreparable harm is the loss of customer goodwill because goodwill is intangible and difficult to 

calculate. See Basicomputer Corp. v. Scott, 973 F.2d 507, 512 (6th Cir. 1992) (“The loss of 

customer good will often amounts to irreparable injury because the damages flowing from such 

losses are difficult to compute.”). Hill Distributing argues that it stands to lose customer 

goodwill in this situation because it has developed a clientele for the Carlsberg brands and will 

suffer if it is no longer able to sell these products to its clients. Additionally, Hill Distributing is 

concerned that the loss of this brand may have a spillover effect, as customers could start to look 

to other distributors to satisfy all of their needs. It believes that these concerns are particularly 

acute because beer distributing is a highly competitive, but minimal growth, market. 

 St. Killian argues that because the Brands make up such a small part of Hill 

Distributing’s total business—.51% and .54% in 2009 and 2010 respectively—the loss in 

Case: 2:11-cv-00706-ALM-EPD Doc #: 16 Filed: 09/07/11 Page: 8 of 11 PAGEID #: <pageID>
9

goodwill is de minimis. In Tri-County Wholesaler Distributors, Inc. v. The Wine Group, No. 

2:10-cv-693, 2010 WL 3522973, at *8 (S.D. Ohio 2010), this Court found that a franchise 

termination would lead to irreparable harm because the brands comprised a significant portion of 

the distributor’s sales and the distributor had marketed the brands for decades. Here, the Brands 

make up only a small part of Hill Distributing’s sales, and they have only been a part of the 

portfolio for eight years. Nevertheless, Hill Distributing argues that these sales figures do not 

adequately represent the likely damages to its goodwill. As its goodwill is premised on its 

market niche for imported beers, the Brands are critical to the company’s overall portfolio. 

 Further, St. Killian argues that Hill Distributing has an adequate remedy at law because it 

can be made whole by monetary damages. It relies on the OABFA itself, which has a provision 

to calculate monetary damages for loss of goodwill in connection to terminations by successor 

manufacturers under § 1333.85(D).1

 This provision, however, applies when a franchise is 

terminated by a successor manufacturer and thus is inapplicable to the current situation. 

 Ultimately, while the Brands make up only a small percentage of Hill Distributing’s 

profit, their impact is felt much more broadly. There is not currently a brand available that could 

fill the void, and any new brands to be imported into the state will look for distributors that are 

growing or in a position to contribute to growth. Thus, the loss of the Brands would have an 

 1

According to the statute, upon termination pursuant to subsection (D), the “distributor 

shall sell and the successor manufacturer shall repurchase the distributor's inventory of the 

terminated or nonrenewed product or brand” at the “laid-out cost to the distributor including 

freight and cartage.” R.C. §§ 1333.85(C) and (D). The successor manufacturer must also 

compensate the distributor “for the diminished value of the distributor’s business that is directly 

related to the sale of the product or brand terminated.” R.C. § 1333.85(D). The value of directly 

related business includes, but is not limited to, “the appraised market value of those assets of the 

distributor principally devoted to the sale of the terminated . . . product or brand and the goodwill 

associated with that product or brand.” R.C. § 1333.85(D). 

Case: 2:11-cv-00706-ALM-EPD Doc #: 16 Filed: 09/07/11 Page: 9 of 11 PAGEID #: <pageID>
10

impact that resonates long after the initial termination. Thus, there is a risk of irreparable harm 

to Hill Distributing. 

C. Harm to Others

 The third factor to consider is the harm to others. As Hill Distributing only seeks to 

preserve the status quo, this factor counsels in favor of granting their request for a preliminary 

injunction. 

 St. Killian argues that it will suffer irreparable harm if its efforts to consolidate its 

distributors are delayed. This Court considered this argument in Tri-County. There, the Court 

found that as an injunction would simply preserve the status quo because the manufacturer would 

not be placed in a worse position if the injunction were granted. Tri-County, 2010 WL 3522973, 

at *8. While St. Killian may suffer from lost or delayed expectations, it will be no worse off than 

it is now. Accordingly, this factor counsels in favor of granting the request for a preliminary 

injunction. 

D. Public Interest 

 The fourth factor to consider is the public interest. As Hill Distributing and St. Killian 

both believe that Ohio law favors their position, they both argue that the public interest is served 

when Ohio law is followed. This Court has found that Ohio law favors Hill Distributing, and 

thus this argument supports their position that an injunction should be granted. 

E. Balancing the Factors

 In sum, the factors support Hill Distributing. Hill is likely to prevail on the merits and 

may suffer irreparable harm if the injunction is not granted. While St. Killian may suffer from 

disappointed expectations, it will be no worse off in the injunction is granted. Finally, the public 

interest favors an injunction. 

Case: 2:11-cv-00706-ALM-EPD Doc #: 16 Filed: 09/07/11 Page: 10 of 11 PAGEID #: <pageID>
11

IV. CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, Hill Distributing’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction is 

GRANTED. St. Killian is enjoined from terminating Hill Distributing’s franchise relationship 

with Carlsberg. The companies shall maintain the status quo until the case is tried on the merits. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 s/Algenon L. Marbley 

 ALGENON L. MARBLEY 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 Dated: September 7, 2011 

Case: 2:11-cv-00706-ALM-EPD Doc #: 16 Filed: 09/07/11 Page: 11 of 11 PAGEID #: <pageID>