Rep. Proposes Repealing Liquor Board's 'Flexible Pricing' Provision
A state representative is not convinced Pennsylvania's new liquor law's “flexible pricing” provision has led to lower prices for consumers or given the state increased revenue. He said the provision must be repealed and legislation must be created for consumer protection.
March 02, 2018 at 01:16 PM
2 minute read
Pennsylvania State Capitol, Harrisburg. Photo: Waldteufel – Fotolia
A state representative is not convinced Pennsylvania's new liquor law's “flexible pricing” provision has led to lower prices for consumers or given the state increased revenue. He said the provision must be repealed and legislation must be created for consumer protection.
In a memo released by Rep. Jesse Topper, R-Bedford, Topper said Act 39 grants the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board with a flexible pricing provision that allows the board to price its best-selling and limited purchase items in a matter that “'maximizes the return on the sale of those items' and to 'discount the price of discontinued items.'”
According to Topper, the PLCB “championed” for that flexible pricing option to be able to more effectively negotiate with liquor suppliers and lower the price of some products in state stores.
Although Topper called Act 39 an alteration of the state's “archaic liquor system,” he said he hasn't seen the act's flexible pricing provision trickling down any lower prices to consumers and the board hasn't “convincingly shown” the provision has provided the state with increased revenues.
—Victoria Hudgins, of the Law Weekly •
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All
Capitol Report: Additional Common Pleas Judges, Professional Licesnsing
Capitol Report: Prescription Coverage, Striking Workers, Stormwater Management
Trending Stories
- 1FDA Defends Rejection of Vape-Flavor Applications Before Sympathetic Supreme Court
- 2Ex-CEO Michael Jeffries Sues Abercrombie, Claiming Company Must Cover Legal Fees in Sex Trafficking Case
- 3Alston & Bird Achieves Higher Rating for Medicare Advantage Insurance Companies
- 4This Year's Biggest Winners and Losers in UK Corporate Clients
- 5Freshfields Hires SEC Associate Director in Latest D.C. Lateral Hiring Spree
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250
