Putative Class Actions
Putative Class Actions in the United States – Update of “Origin of Stolichnaya” dispute
On 18 October 2006, Russian Standard Vodka (USA), Inc. and Roust Trading Limited brought an action against Allied Domecq Spirits & Wine USA, Inc. (ADSW USA) and Pernod Ricard USA, LLC (PR USA) in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. On 4 December 2006, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint adding S.P.I. Group SA and S.P.I. Spirits (Cyprus) Limited (together, SPI) as defendants. The plaintiffs allege that the defendants are engaged, in false advertising under federal and New York State law, and also in unlawful trade practices and unfair competition, by advertising and promoting Stolichnaya vodka as “Russian vodka” and by making certain related claims on their website and in their advertising campaigns. The plaintiffs are also seeking a declaratory judgment by the Court that they have not engaged in false advertising by virtue of their public statements challenging the “Russian” character of Stolichnaya vodka, and are seeking damages, including the disgorgement of all related profits made by the Group.
Since the filing of this case, the parties have been engaged in motion practice and discovery. In February 2009, the defendants all moved for summary judgment. SPI argues principally that the plaintiffs lack standing.
PR USA and ADSW USA primarily argue that the plaintiffs are no longer entitled to seek relief against PR USA and ADSW USA, as they have ceased all involvement with the Stolichnaya brand in the United States. PR USA and ADSW USA also adopt SPI’s arguments in their own motion.
In November 2009, the case was reassigned a new judge. The new judge held a conference with the parties on 29 January 2010. The judge asked the parties to submit a joint letter by 12 February 2010 to report on the status of settlement negotiations. In the parties’ 26 February 2010 letter, plaintiffs stated: “After further discussions with their clients, plaintiffs’ counsel report that plaintiffs are ready to enter into a settlement with Defendants that would include dismissal of all claims in this litigation with prejudice, as well as resolution of other disputes outside of this litigation between plaintiffs and SPI defendants. The parties are currently discussing and finalizing the terms of this settlement.”
On 1 March 2010, in light of the parties’ letter, the Court dismissed the case with prejudice, but gave the parties 30 days to consummate their settlement agreement. If the parties are unable to reach agreement on the terms of the settlement within 30 days, the plaintiffs may request that the Court restore the case to the Court’s docket.
