Insights
Publications

Growers Can Lien on Distressed Wineries

5/19/2014 Articles

Published in the North Bay Business Journal

A lot goes into the making of great wine, and when a winery becomes financially unstable, there are a lot of competing interests that need to be satisfied, including the banks that provide the winery with financing, the growers that provide the winery with grapes, the employees who provide services to the wine maker and the company that bottles and/or stores the wine.

If you are a grower of grapes that you supply to a winery for making wine, you may be in a better position to ensure payment than other parties, but you must be sure to take steps to protect your interests.

Under California law, every producer of farm products (including grapes) who sells “product” to a licensed processor automatically has a lien on all of the product sold and all processed items made from the product until the grower is paid in full for its product.

‘Perfected’ but ‘fully secured’?

The grower’s lien is “perfected” — valid against third parties — automatically upon delivery of the grapes to the processor (winery), without the need for filing or recording any document or providing any notice to third parties.

Furthermore, a grower’s lien extends to all product and processed items in the possession of the processor. That includes wine that is stored in a warehouse by the winery), and no segregation of a particular grower’s product is required.

Therefore, unless the winery segregates the grapes received from different growers — for example, using only one grower’s grapes in the winery’s cabernet sauvignon — the grower’s lien extends to all the wine in the winery’s “possession” that contains any of that grower’s grapes.

However, simply because a grower’s lien extends to all the winery’s finished product containing the grower’s grapes does not necessarily mean the grower is “fully secured.” If the total amount of multiple grower’s liens exceeds the total value of the finished product, the growers will share in the collateral pro rata, regardless of when the grapes were delivered. In other words, it is not first come, first served.

Extends to finished wine?

It is also important to note that once the grapes or wine leave the winery’s possession, the grower’s lien is extinguished, and it is currently unclear in California whether the grower would have a continuing lien in the proceeds from the sale of the finished wine. Although a winery that sells farm products, including wine, without paying the grower that provided the grapes is subject to criminal liability and may face suspension or revocation of its producer’s license, this may not be sufficient to stop the sale or transfer of the wine.

Therefore, a grower would be wise to make every effort to enforce its lien — including by attempting to obtain an injunction or temporary restraining order — to prevent a winery in distress from selling any of the wine before the grower gets paid.

Power through enforcement

A grower’s lien generally has priority over all other liens or claims, except labor claims for services rendered to the winery after delivery of the grapes and warehouse liens for any warehouse that may be storing the winery’s wine. Although the producer’s lien is considered a preferred lien in California, if a grower goes unpaid for its grapes and seeks to enforce its lien, generally the grower’s only option is to initiate a lawsuit to reclaim the grapes, juice or wine from the winery. In many instances, this can be cost-prohibitive.

If not cost-prohibitive, however, enforcement of a grower’s lien can be a powerful tool. Once a lawsuit is initiated, a grower can seek a preliminary injunction and/or temporary restraining order to prevent the winery from selling or otherwise transferring the grapes or wine, which would have the effect of extinguishing the lien. And once the claim is reduced to a judgment, the grower can execute on the judgment by levying on the grapes and or wine. That means, having the sheriff seize the wine and sell it to pay off the grower.

Reveal the ‘secret lien’

Because a grower’s lien arises automatically upon delivering the grapes to the winery, it is considered a “secret lien.” That means other creditors may not be aware of the lien, including other growers. As a result, a secured lender may be able to foreclose on all the winery’s collateral without the growers who provided the grapes ever being notified.

Therefore, growers dealing with a slow-paying winery would be wise to have the winery affirmatively grant the grower a security interest in the wine in a written agreement, and also file a UCC-1 financing statement to provide notice to third-parties of their lien.

Firm Highlights

Publication

Disputes Between Shareholders May Not Be Governed by Fiduciary Duties but Could Be Covered by Insurance

(As published in Private Company Director ) Disputes regarding ownership interests often arise in the context of closely held corporations, particularly when directors, officers, or majority shareholders sell or acquire ownership interests in the...

Read More
News

Sarah Good Honored Among Most Influential Women in Bay Area Business

Read More
Publication

Major Decision Affects Law of Scraping and Online Data Collection, Meta Platforms v. Bright Data

On January 23, 2024, the court in Meta Platforms Inc. v. Bright Data Ltd. , Case No. 3:23-cv-00077-EMC (N.D. Cal.), issued a summary judgment ruling with potentially wide-ranging ramifications for the law of scraping and...

Read More
Publication

Wire Fraud Victims Have New Reporting Factors After Ciminelli

Originally published by  Bloomberg Law . Courts around the country have seen an influx of challenges to indictments and convictions since the US Supreme Court’s unanimous decision in  Ciminelli v. United States  last May...

Read More
Publication

Reporting Dispute Claims Within Closely Held Wineries

Many wineries operate as closely held companies, meaning they’re owned by an individual or small group of shareholders, who are often members of the same family. Disputes regarding ownership interests can arise, particularly when directors...

Read More
News

Scraping Battles: Meta Loses Legal Effort to Halt Harvesting of Personal Profiles

Alex Reese spoke to Matt Fleischer-Black of  Cybersecurity Law Report about the Meta v. Bright Data decision and its impact on U.S. scraping case law. Read the article here (paywall or trial).

Read More
News

Farella Braun + Martel Earns 2024 Best Law Firms® Rankings

Read More
News

Farella Wins Complete Defense Ruling at Trial for Smart Meter Technology Company

Northern California legal powerhouse Farella Braun + Martel secured a complete defense victory for a smart meter technology company following a two-week bench trial in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of California...

Read More
News

Farella 2024 Partner Elevations: Cynthia Castillo and Greg LeSaint

Northern California legal powerhouse Farella Braun + Martel is pleased to announce the election of two lawyers to partnership effective Jan. 1: Cynthia Castillo and Greg LeSaint. “We are thrilled to elevate Cynthia and...

Read More
Publication

Compelling Employees to Arbitration Suddenly Has Less of an Upside

On July 17, the California Supreme Court issued its much-anticipated decision in Adolph v. Uber Techs Inc., as to whether employees still have standing to sue for "non-individual" PAGA claims when they have been...

Read More