Pernod plots heady mix with Jack Daniel's maker. By CITY & FINANCE REPORTER Updated: 06:55 EDT, 28 March 2026 French spirits giant Pernod Ricard is in talks over a £22 billion tie-up with US firm Brown-Forman - the maker of Jack Daniel's. The deal would bring together some of the world's best-known drinks brands. Pernod's include Absolut Vodka (endorsed by Paris Hilton) and Jameson Irish whiskey. Brown-Forman produces el Jimador tequila and Chambord. Raising a glass: Pernod's include Absolut Vodka (endorsed by Paris Hilton, above) How this is money can help. Analysts said a tie-up would make strategic sense in a sector hit by weakening demand and trade tensions. Russ Mould, investment director at AJ Bell, said: 'Household budgets are under pressure and people are drinking less for health and lifestyle reasons.'

Brown-Forman shares surged over 20% following reports that Pernod Ricard has held early-stage talks about a potential acquisition of the US spirits maker. Bloomberg reported the companies discussed a possible combination, with Reuters confirming merger talks occurred. A deal would unite two of the world's largest distillers. Brown-Forman owns Jack Daniel's, Herradura Tequila and Diplomático rum, whilst Pernod's portfolio includes Beefeater gin, Absolut vodka and Chivas Regal whisky. The spirits industry faces weakening consumer demand, particularly in the US and China. Pernod recently reported a 15% US sales decline, whilst Brown-Forman's US sales fell 8% in the nine months to 31 January. The Brown family controls two-thirds of voting rights at Brown-Forman, which previously rebuffed acquisition attempts, including from Constellation Brands in 2016.

Sixth Circuit rejects NLRB's Cemex bargaining-order standard. 03.20.2026 In Brown-Forman Corp. v. NLRB, Nos. 24-2107/25-1060, the Sixth Circuit reviewed a National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) order requiring Brown-Forman's Woodford Reserve facility to bargain with the Teamsters Local 651 after the union lost a secret-ballot election. The NLRB upheld a finding that Brown-Forman had committed unfair labor practices and interfered with its employees' efforts to unionize. The NLRB then issued a bargaining order based solely on the standard articulated in Cemex Constr. Materials Pac, LLC, 2023 WL 5506930 (2023), which required it to issue a bargaining order as the default remedy if it set aside an election. Upon review, the Sixth Circuit held that Cemex could not support a bargaining order because Cemex was an improper exercise of the NLRB's adjudicatory authority. Background In the midst of a union campaign sparked by employee dissatisfaction with wages, Brown-Forman announced a $1-per-hour across-the board pay raise. Upon learning that support for the union appeared to be growing, Brown-Forman announced an additional $4-per-hour across-the-board raise and adjustments to employee benefits, including holiday vacation flexibility. According to the Sixth Circuit, some employees viewed the "pay raise as a 'bribe' worth taking." Management also held mandatory meetings emphasizing that unionization could limit the company's discretion to adjust wages, and it gave employees bottles of bourbon a week before the election. These actions were deemed to be unfair labor practices that interfered with the union election. The Legal Framework and the NLRB's Approach Under long-standing Supreme Court precedent in NLRB v. Gissel Packing Co., 395 U.S. 575 (1969), a bargaining order is an extraordinary, last-resort remedy appropriate only when an employer's unfair labor practices make a fair rerun election unlikely and when the union, at one point, had a majority of the employees' support as evidenced by union authorization cards. Under Gissel, the NLRB can issue a bargaining order if other remedies (like ordering a new election) are not sufficient to protect the employees' choice to unionize. In 2023, the NLRB's Cemex decision announced a new approach: automatically defaulting to the issuance of a bargaining order when an employer's unfair labor practices interfered with a free, fair, and timely election. The Cemex standard does not consider whether a new, fair election could occur. In Brown-Forman's case, the Board relied solely on the standard announced in Cemex and declined to analyze whether a bargaining order would be appropriate under Gissel. The Sixth Circuit's Decision The Court upheld the NLRB's unfair labor practice findings as supported by substantial evidence and approved consideration of related pre-petition conduct. But it held that Cemex was created through an improper exercise of adjudicatory authority because it announced a generally applicable, forward-looking standard not derived from or necessary to resolve the case before the agency. The new standard announced in Cemex was not remedial in nature. It was designed to deter future, hypothetical preelection violations of the National Labor Relations Act. In short, "the new standard was rulemaking under the guise of an adjudication." The NLRB must announce new rules in the Federal Register, not in the context of an adjudication. Because the Board's bargaining order against Brown-Forman rested solely on Cemex, the court refused enforcement and remanded for proceedings consistent with its opinion. The Decision's Impact Going forward, in the areas covered by the Sixth Circuit, Cemex cannot be used to issue a bargaining order if an employer commits an unfair labor practice that arguably interferes with a union election. The stricter Gissel standard, which requires a showing that a fair rerun is unlikely and that a bargaining order is needed to protect employees' choices, remains the law. For assistance or questions regarding labor relations or union negotiations, contact a member of Bricker Graydon Wyatt's employment counsel.