Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-l4dxg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-12T14:48:09.586Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Stock Market Reaction to Court Decisions Related to Differential Treatment of In-State and Out-of-State Internet Wine Sales*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 June 2012

Rajneesh Sharma
Rajneesh Sharma
Affiliation:
Department of Finance, Saint Joseph's University, 236 Mandeville Hall, 5600 City Line Avenue, Philadelphia, PA 19131, Phone: 610–660–1115, email: rsharma@sju.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper analyzes stock market reaction to court decisions related to the differential treatment of in-state and out-of-state internet wine sales. Several states had differential laws governing internet sales of wine directly to consumers for in-state and out-of-state wineries. These laws were possibly more harmful to small wine producers as their products are less likely to be carried by retailers. In May of 2005, The Supreme Court of the United States declared these practices unconstitutional. Prior to the Supreme Court granting the writ of certiorari there was a circuit split on the issue. Our study seeks to measure the impact of the Courts' decisions on the stock returns of wineries using standard event study methodology. The results show a negative stock market reaction to publically traded large wineries to the Supreme Court ruling. It appears that differential treatment laws were, indeed, beneficial to the large wineries. (JEL Classification: G18, Q28)

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Wine Economics , Volume 5 , Issue 1 , Spring 2010 , pp. 69 - 86
Copyright
Copyright © American Association of Wine Economists 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bhagat, S. and Romano, R. (2002). Event studies and the law: part I: technique and corporate litigation. American Law and Economics Review, 4(1), 141–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Billingsley, R.S. and Lamy, R.E. (1992) Regional reciprocal interstate banking: the Supreme Court and the resolution of uncertainty. Journal of Banking and Finance, 16(4), 665–686.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bainbridge v. Turner, 311 F.3d 1104, 1115 (11th Cir. 2002).Google Scholar
Beskind v. Easley, 325 F.3d 506 (4th Cir. 2003).Google Scholar
Brindenbaugh v. Freeman-Wilson, 227 F.3d 848, 851 (7th Cir. 2000).Google Scholar
Carrow, K. and Heron, R. (1998). The Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act of 1994: a wealth event for acquisition targets. Journal of Banking and Finance, 22(2), 175–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Constellation Brands, Inc. Available: http://premium.hoovers.com/subscribe/co/history.xhtml?ID=ffffrrxfffhsjhrrrk [2009, 6/23].Google Scholar
Cowan, A.R. (2007). Eventus® User's Guide: Software Version 8.0, Standard Edition 2.1 ed., Arnes, Iowa: Cowan Research L.C.Google Scholar
Diageo Completes Acquisition of Chalone Wine Group Ltd. (2005). PR Newswire, 9 Feb.Google Scholar
Dickerson v. Bailey, 336 F.3d 388 (5th Cir. 2003).Google Scholar
Dodd, P. and Warner, J.B. (1983). On corporate governance: a study of proxy contests. Journal of Financial Economics, 11(1–4), 401–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fama, E.F. (1970). Efficient capital markets: a review of theory and empirical work. 77ie Journal of Finance, 25(2), 383–417 (Papers and Proceedings of the Twenty-Eighth Annual Meeting of the American Finance Association New York, NY, December, 28–30, 1969).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fama, E.F. and French, K.R. (1993). Common risk factors in the returns on stocks and bonds. Journal of Financial Economics, 33(1), 3–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fraser, D.R., Hooton, J.L., Kolari, J.W. and Reising, J.J. (1997). The wealth effects of interstate branching. Journal of Banking & Finance, 21(5), 589–611.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Golden State Vintners, Inc. Available: http://premium.hoovers.com/subscribe/co/boneyard/factsheet.xhtml?ID=hjskhffsrfxjkr [2009, 6/23].Google Scholar
Gupta, A. (1997). The value of a regulatory seal of approval. The Journal of Financial Research, 20(1), 111–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Granholm v. Heald, 544 U.S 460 (2005).Google Scholar
Heald v. Engler, 342 F.3d 517 (6th Cir. 2003).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jambulingam, T., Sharma, R. and Ghani, W. (2009). Wealth effects of the pharmaceutical industryphysician interaction compliance guidelines on large pharmaceutical companies. International Journal of Pharmaceutical and Healthcare Marketing, 3(3), 210–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacKinlay, A.C. (1997). Event studies in economics and finance. Journal of Economic Literature, 35(1), 13–39.Google Scholar
Michigan wine direct shipment case. Available http://www.law.indiana.edu/webinit/tanford/wine/mihome.html [2009, 6/23].Google Scholar
Ravenswood Winery, Inc. Available: http://premium.hoovers.com/subscribe/co/overview.xhtml?ID=ffffhsfsxfjrrjskyj [2009, 6/23].Google Scholar
Recent Stock - Listing Changes (2005). Wall Street Journal, 3 May.Google Scholar
R H Phillips. Available: http://premium.hoovers.com/subscribe/co/factsheet.xhtml?ID=ctjckkxkjkyhky [2009, 6/23].Google Scholar
Robert Mondavi Winery. Available: http://premium.hoovers.com/subscribe/co/history.xhtml?ID=ffffrrxfffhsjhrrrk [2009, 6/23].Google Scholar