So DA was not paid by LG for over a year and despite their negative working capital, decided not to make any sort of issue out of it or confront LG?
I guess you would also have to assume that LG was lying then when they said "On or about December 19, 2008, Liquor Group notified Drinks Americas of their alleged numerous contract violations, including but not limited to overdue marketing funding and insufficient inventory to fill customer orders in excess of $300,000.00. Drinks Americas was given six months to bring their accounts current with Liquor Group and to revise the marketing agreements at this time, however no action was taken on their part to rectify the deficiencies." also.
I would certainly expect DA to not only deny this statement, but file a counter claim, particularly since it sounds like LG is keeping over $100k of DA's inventory without paying for it.
And so we have a clearer perspective on the current outstanding litigation, this is from the last filed 10Q
"14. Litigation
On or about July 19, 2006, Manhattan Beer Distributor, LLC, a wholesale distributor of beverages in the State of New York, (“MBD”) initiated litigation in the Supreme Court of the State of New York in Bronx County (Index No. 17776-2006) against the Company. Plaintiff sued for approximately $87,000 plus interest, for alleged distribution services rendered both prior and subsequent to the acquisition of certain assets related to Rheingold Beer. We have answered the complaint and have filed a cross-claim against RBCI Holdings, Inc. (“RBCI”), the entity that sold us the assets, for the portion of the complaint related to pre-acquisition services. RBCI has not filed an answer. In January 2009 the Company reached a settlement agreement in which it is to pay MBD $35,000 in installments though April 2009. If the Company fails to make any payment a judgment will be entered against the Company and RBCI for the entire amount demanded in the complaint , $160,000.
In April 2007, RBCI filed a complaint against the Company in the U.S. District court, Southern District of N.Y. (No. 07-CV-02877). RBCI seeks $150,000 plus 525,738 shares of common stock of the Company and re-assignment of the Rheingold license in damages for an alleged breach of the Asset Purchase Agreement, related to the October 27, 2005 purchase of certain Rheingold assets. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. The Company believes that RBCI overstated assets, understated liabilities and misrepresented revenue in connection with the asset sale. On January 15, 2009 the Company reached a settlement with RBCI in which the Company will issue 350,000 shares of common stock in satisfaction of the to RBCI (see Note 14). Based on the value of the 350,000 shares of $91,000 in the date the agreement was reached the Company has recognized a gain on such settlement of $409,000 which is included in Other income for the nine and three months ended January 31, 2009.
In July 2007, Michele Berg, a former employee of the Company, initiated litigation against the Company in Superior Court of Arizona, Maricopa County (CV2006-019515). The plaintiff seeks $8,125 of unpaid wages, $31,740 for reimbursement of expenses and other compensation, and treble damages for wage claim, for a total of $61,133. The Company is engaging in ongoing settlement discussions with the plaintiff.
In August 2008, TRN Logistics, LLC (“TRN”), a vendor of the Company, filed a complaint against the Company in the Superior Court of the State of Connecticut, Fairfield County. TRN seeks $27,170 for non-payment for transportation services it provided the Company. The Company has worked out a monthly payment plan with the vendor.
In February 2009, Vetrerie Bruni S.p.A the company which has the patent to the Trump Vodka bottle design filed a complaint against us in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York for alleged breach of contract and seeking $210,000 for alleged past due invoices and royalties. The Company is currently engaged in settlement negotiations and if a settlement is not reached the case will be defended.
On February 10, 2009, Dan Klores Communications (“Klores”), a public relations firm filed a complaint against us in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County, Klores is seeking $33,430 for alleged non-payment of services it provided the Company. The Company is in the process of answering the complaint and defending the action. At February 29, 2009 the Company has accrued $25,000 payable to Klores.
Also in February 2009, Dow Jones Inc. filed a complaint against us in the State of Connecticut Supreme Court, Fairfield County. Dow Jones is seeking $16,112 for past due invoices relating for advertising it provided the Company. If the case cannot be resolved it will be defended. At February 29, 2009 the Company has accrued the full amount of the complaint."
I was unable to find any litigation DA had filed against anyone owing them money, or any lawsuits they won so perhaps you could provide that information.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
