Both the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times are reporting that InBev has increased their offer to buy Anheuser-Busch from $65 a share to $70.

Warren Buffet is now saying he’s leaning toward endorsing the InBev takeover. Both Business Week and the CBC are also reporting that talks have turned “friendly” and they’re discussing takeover. Many analysts are also speculating that A-B will likely accept this offer, with a few even suggesting that this could all be over as early as Monday.

When this whole brew-haha began last month, there were several people who predicted that the offer could go as high as $70. It appears those people were correct. But it’s disheartening to think that all this ugly spectacle we’ve been witnessing was nothing more than A-B trying to get a higher offer. I’m cynical enough to understand that’s how business works, but every time such negotiations are revealed to be mere gamesmanship makes it even harder to trust corporate behavior than ever. There could be a sad day for the brewing world coming.

The Busch family is squarely in the public spotlight these days, with August A. Busch IV pitted against his uncle, Adolphus Busch IV in InBev’s takeover bid to acquire Anheuser-Busch. Today, as it happens, is the birthday of the original Adolphus Busch, who was born today in Germany’s Rhineland, in 1839. He moved to St. Louis in 1857, when he was eighteen, and eventually got a sales job with Charles Ehlermann Hops and Malt Co. After a distinguished stint as a soldier during the Civil War, he returned to his brewery supply job and married Lily Anheuser, the daughter of Eberhard Anheuser. Together, they had thirteen children, including Adolphus Busch II and August A. Busch I. after marrying Lily, he joined the family business, then known as E. Anheuser Co.’s Brewing Association, and eventually became a partner. When Lily’s father passed away in 1879, Adolphus changed the name to Anheuser-Busch.

In St. Louis, Adolphus Busch was busy transforming his father-in-law’s (Eberhard Anheuser’s) once-failing brewery into a grand empire. Adolphus, perhaps more than any other brewer, became known for his flamboyant, almost audacious persona. Tirelessly promoting his Budweiser Beer, he toured the country in a luxurious railroad car immodestly named “The Adolphus.” In place of the standard calling card, the young entrepreneur presented friends and business associates with his trademark gold-plated pocket knife featuring a peephole in which could be viewed a likeness of Adolphus himself. His workers bowed in deference as he passed. “See, just like der king!” he liked to say.

For more on Adolphus Busch’s history and legacy, see:

• The King of Beer (from 1929)
• U.S. Department of Labor
• Wikipedia

Today’s L.A. Times, in the food section, has an interesting looking recipe for beer cake. The recipe is adapted from a new book by food writer Tessa Kiros entitled Piri Piri Starfish: Portugal Found. She writes. “Use a lovely dark, full- flavored beer that will show up well in your cake. I used acacia honey and you can use other nuts instead of walnuts, if you prefer.”

It apparently takes about 1 1/2 hours to make and looks relatively easy … and very tasty, too.
 

As many of you probably know, Stan Hieronymus, who’s been blogging Real Beer’s Beer Therapy for many a moon — among much else — is on the road. Stan and his wife, Daria Labinsky, along with their daughter, Sierra, are currently on a 15-month trip around the world. You can follow their exploits on The Slow Travelers, a running blog written by the entire family. Stan will continue to post the occasional story over at Beer Therapy, but there will be times when he’s out of range for internet access and times when he’s just too darn busy having fun.

So I’ll be filling in for Stan and taking over the day to day duties of Beer Therapy. I’ll continue to write here, too, and I encourage you to read both. Beer Therapy will remain the place to go for news about the world of beer, whereas I’ll continue to analyze that news here on the Bulletin in my own snarky way.

It’s not exactly the Cuban missile crisis, what with row after row of deadly longneck beer bottles aimed at America’s shores instead of actual missiles, but it’s the best bogeyman Anheuser-Busch could come up with on short notice.
 

I’ve been around lawyers a good portion of my life, from relatives, my work and even my wife, so I understand that in situations like these, you try any argument, no matter how ridiculous to advance your cause. But even armed with that foresight, this one just smacks of desperation and feels like it’s doing more harm than good. I’m talking about the latest salvo from A-B HQ, responding to InBev’s announcement in a full page ad in Sunday’s St. Louis newspaper that should their takeover be successful, St. Louis would remain the North American headquarters of the new global entity. In the latest lawsuit filed by A-B, they’re citing the usual complaints: an illegal plan and scheme by InBev, through a course of deceptive conduct, to acquire control of Anheuser-Busch at a bargain price (despite its record price), making “false and misleading statements,” and similar typical blanket statements. But by far my favorite grasped-at-straw is this one, as reported by Reuters:

The suit also questions InBev’s claim that it would make Anheuser’s hometown of St. Louis the North American headquarters for the combined company, since InBev has a business in Cuba which cannot be managed from the United States.

The fact is that a nanosecond’s thought would make even the most un-business-savvy person realize that Cuba’s business could be managed from the location it currently is — probably from Europe, I imagine — while running the rest of North America from St. Louis, as promised. The janitor could have told them that, with no need to annoy the upper floors of MBAs.

But if you want to get fancy, a reasonable argument can be made that Cuba isn’t even in North America, but Central America. We certainly don’t think of any country south of Mexico as being part of North America, and Cuba is at least partially south of Mexico. Even the CIA World Factbook lists Cuba as being in the “Caribbean, [an] island between the Caribbean Sea and the North Atlantic Ocean, 150 km south of Key West, Florida.” I don’t believe I’ve ever heard anyone suggest Cuba was a part of North America. Cuba is in between the Bahamas and Jamaica, neither of which are considered part of North America, either.

Other reports are saying the issue is that InBev somehow “concealed” the fact that they are doing business in Cuba. But that information is clearly disclosed on their website, as a moment’s searching reveals under Market Information By Country. It took me all of about 20 seconds.

I think my issue with raising Cuba is that it devalues the other arguments made in their lawsuit. The other issues raised by A-B about misleading statements and problems with financing are far more serious and material to the takeover bid. But by including this ridiculous and desperate-sounding complaint about Cuba it drags down those other arguments, making it all sound more questionable by association.

And it looks like I’m not alone. From a Bloomberg article:

The suit “seems more emotional than in the best interest of the shareholders,” Stephen Jarislowsky, chief executive officer of Jarislowsky Frasier Ltd. in Montreal, said in an interview. “Instead of simmering down and getting the best deal, they are being childish.” Jarislowsky’s company holds nearly 1.7 million Anheuser-Busch shares.

The fact that we’ve demonized Cuba, while at the same time consorted and aided an endless parade of far worse despots than Castro makes this whole argument even more preposterous. A-B has seven field offices in China (and operates 14 breweries there, with another one planned) and two in Russia (where they contract brew their beer). I mention this to illustrate that morality is not really the issue here, just the letter of the law. Neither country has a particularly good human rights record, but at least they’re not listed in the US Trading With The Enemy Act. In fact, Cuba is the only country covered by the Act. Until very recently, there were two, but President Bush removed North Korea from the list in late June. So presumably A-B International will start selling beer to North Korea from their contract brewery located in South Korea.

I say we invade Cuba again, this time at the Bay of Blind Pig IPA.

The Godzilla movie that is InBev vs. Anheuser-Busch took the fighting to the streets of St. Louis this weekend, beginning with a full page ad that InBev took out in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the city’s largest newspaper. I’ve been unable to find out what the ad looked like exactly, but an AP story described it as InBev trying to convince locals that “the takeover would make for a stronger, more competitive global company,” with plans to expand the Budweiser brand globally (isn’t it already in most foreign markets?) with St. Louis remaining the HQ for North American business. In addition, InBev promised to keep all of A-B’s existing breweries open (for now, one presumes, since their track record in this regard is spotty at best).

Yesterday, InBev renewed its efforts to remove the A-B board of directors and replace them. Today, The St. Louis Post-Dispatch newspaper shot back with no less than four separate articles about InBev’s increasingly hostile takeover of hometown A-B. The first, Busch IV vs. Busch IV is all about the proposed board changes and the people InBev seeks to place on A-B’s board, including Adolphus Busch IV, and uncle of August A. Busch IV. The current 13-member board is made up of 10 independents and four local residents (2 of which are former A-B execs). InBev’s proposed new board would consist of 12 independents and only one local resident.

Next up is InBev’s takeover bid could depend on a rarely used gambit, an analysis of what InBev is trying as of Monday, which is instead of suing in Delaware to have the board removed is going directly to A-B shareholders and asking them to vote to remove A-B’s current board of directors. Then there’s an analysis of A-B’s response to the Delaware lawsuit, A-B sues InBev to block move to boot board, which describes A-B’s own counter-suit.

Lastly, there’s a column about Ed Martin and his efforts to keep the A-B takeover from happening. He’s the former Missouri Governor’s chief of staff who set up the SaveAB website. As of today, 66,700 Americans signed his online petition to stop the sale, or 0.02% of the approximately 304,549,209 Americans as of the moment of this writing, according to the U.S. Census Board’s PopClock Projection. That’s not exactly overwhelming support for his mission or indicative that many people share his view that A-B is an intrinsically American brand. Hell, his petition represents less than 19% of just St. Louis’ population. And even more curious, the 66,000 figure is eerily close to half of the number of employees that work for Anheuser-Busch. Factor in that each spouse would also sign the petition and you’ve got close to a zero sum game.

Whew, it’s tiring just keeping up with what’s going on as the two titan beer companies continue to duke it out for world dominance.

I heard a rumor today that Rodger Davis, former brewer at Drake’s, was hired to be the new head brewer at Triple Rock, now that Christian Kazakoff is moving to Iron Springs. I have now been able to confirm this with John Martin, co-owner of Triple Rock Brewery, whom I spoke with this afternoon. Martin also confirmed the continuation of the Bay Area Firkin Festival next year at the brewpub.

Rodger Davis, new head brewer at Triple Rock.
 

My friend Maureen Ogle, who wrote Ambitious Brew — The Story of American Beer, weighed in with an op-ed piece on the proposed InBev takeover of Anheuser-Busch in the Washington Post over the weekend. The original version had a typically snarky quote from yours truly, but the Post editors saw fit to excise me from the final version. It’s probably just as well. Maureen’s singular voice comes through much better without side opinions mucking things up.

Like me, Ogle believes the deal is a bad one overall, but views it with a certain inevitability. I’m firmly against the takeover, but only because I believe it will be bad for the beer industry as a whole, and has the potential to really harm craft brewers’ access to market. But the whole affair seems a perfect illustration of that old saw, “those who live by the sword, die by the sword,” playing out in real time. For that reason, it’s hard to muster much sympathy for the Busch family who, like InBev right now, have invoked the “it’s just business” mantra to excuse their behavior countless times over their nearly 140-year history.

I got an e-mail last week from John Schlimm, the author of the recently published Ultimate Beer Lover’s Cookbook. He did a sidebar, Beer and the Campaign Trail, with beer recipes for each of the Presidential candidates and their spouses, based on their personalities. For example, Bill Clinton’s dish is “Squirrel Dinner for Two with a Root Beer Float” and John McCain’s is a “Cheese Steak Sandwich with a Red, White, & Blue.” Schlimm is also a member of the Straub family, whose family have operated the Straub Brewery in St. Marys, Pennsylvania, since his great-great-grandfather Peter Straub opened it in 1872.

The sidebar was for an article in The Hill, a Washington D.C. newspaper, entitled Drink Up, by Betsy Rothstein. Drink Up examines beer in campaigns, especially when candidates use beer as a photo op to appear connected to the masses of voters. For many people, the question “which candidate would you like to have a beer with” says more about the social function of beer than the individual candidates.

“Beer is, by its very definition, a product that brings people together, a product of celebration,” said Craig Purser, president and CEO of the National Beer Wholesalers Association. “It’s something Americans connect with.”

Beer and politics is nothing new, of course. As the most popular alcoholic drink for decades, if not longer, beer has been part of the campaign trail in some fashion for nearly every election since our country’s founding. It would actually be more surprising if it didn’t figure in elections, since it’s such an integral part of our society.

Of course, not everyone likes the idea of alcohol and society co-existing. Strange as it seems, Steve Kagen, a Democrat representing the 8th District of Wisconsin in the House of Representatives, “sees no place for it in his professional life. ‘I have listening sessions, not drinking sessions,’ he says” rather condescendingly. Presumably, for him the two are mutually exclusive. I assume he’s no friend to his home state’s Miller Brewing Co., who so obviously contribute positively to the economy and create jobs nor to the millions of his constituents who enjoy drinking beer. But his final words say it best.

Kagen says if he were sitting down with the politician who would represent his best interests and those of his family, “it would be my hope that they would offer me fresh fruits and vegetables.”

Now I love both fruit and vegetables, but nothing says “man of the people” quite like a teetotaler who’d prefer apples to ales, or lettuce to lagers. That’s just nuts.

Last Saturday, I held what I billed as an “Overstuffed Refrigerator Emptying Beer Tasting Party” in order to clean out mt refrigerators of beer that’s been in there for a while now, and also to make room for many more beers languishing in the Marin heat of my garage. I have three refrigerators, and two of them are dedicated to only beer. I managed to fill five coolers of beer for the tasting, and invited people I thought would most appreciate the beers. The beers had been brought back from recent trips to England, Germany, Belgium and even New Zealand. There were also many others, both foreign and domestic, from still more trips around the country. Some were recent acquisitions while others had been aging for quite some time, longer than ten years in a few cases. I limited the number of guests to a dozen, because many of the beers I had were only a single 12 oz. bottle, or less. Even on short notice, I managed to pull together enough people to come and help me empty the fridge. Happily, I don’t have to do a detailed listing of what we opened, because JJ, The Thirsty Hopster, did a wonderful job herself of writing up the tasting. So all I can add is few photos and little extra commentary.

The assembled group in my front room.

Arne Johnson, from Marin Brewing, opening the cork on an AleSmith Golden Strong Ale, from before Skip sold the brewery.

Sean Paxton — The Homebrew Chef — with his first choice of the day, the Old Habit Strong Rye Ale from Ithaca Brewing.

Brewer Jeff O’Neil gave me this bottle a little over a year ago, and it was an early favorite, but then I love rye beers.

The faux beer caviar Sean made with IPA tapioca balls. Yum.

Sadly, we only managed to open fifty beers. I had been hoping for more, but alas it was not to be. As JJ correctly predicts, I’m already contemplating an OREBTP 2 sometime later this year. For the final beer of the evening, I took a chance on an old bottle I’ve been dragging around with me for almost a decade; the Samuel Adams Millennium Ale, ale brewed with maple syrup.

My memory is that Boston Beer had 2,000 bottles which were available for sale at retail, but also made another 1,000 for promotional use. One of these made its way into my hands — bottle number 2052 of 3000 (signed by Jim Koch) — and I opened it during a Christmas party, most likely in 1999. After that party, there was an inch or two left in the bottom of the bottle, and so I put the cork back in the bottle, slid it into its blue cloth sleeping bag and placed it back inside the wooden box it came in. It remained there through two moves and I took no great pains to keep it under ideal conditions. Of course, I didn’t do anything horrible to it, either. At 20.9% abv, I was certainly curious what it tasted like now. I remember at the time of its release, Jim Koch said that he thought it would age for another 1,000 years, but that they really had no idea. I still have another full unopened bottle — number 1639 of 3000 — so perhaps I should hand it down to my son, who in turn can do the same down through successive generations.

Anyway, what really surprised me about what remained of the beer was how good it still was, despite my having taken no great pains to protect it. It tasted remarkably similar to my nine-year-old memory of it, though who knows how accurate that might be. Whether it has gained any complexity remains an open question, but it was still certainly very tasty.