Home Industry News Releases Qupé Unveils New “Blends Tier” to Join Portfolio of Rhône VarietalsIndustry News ReleasesWine BusinessQupé Unveils New “Blends Tier” to Join Portfolio of Rhône VarietalsBy Press Release – July 2, 2015 37 0 Share AdvertisementNew York, NY (July 1, 2015) — Qupé, California’s iconic Rhône varietal producer, is proud to announce the release of the new “Blends Tier,” featuring two wines sourced from California’s Central Coast: ‘A Modern White’ and ‘A Modern Red.’ A Modern White and A Modern Red will further Qupé’s leadership in American-grown Rhône varietals, and introduce value selections targeted to younger audiences. Debuting in market this July, 2,500 cases of 2014 A Modern White and 7,000 cases of 2013 A Modern Red will be nationally distributed. The SRP for both blends will be $16.99.The 2014 A Modern White is a blend of Viognier, Chardonnay and Marsanne, sourced from vineyards in Santa Maria Valley, Edna Valley, Los Olivos and Santa Ynez. The 2013 A Modern Red is a blend of Syrah, Grenache and Mourvèdre, sourced from vineyards in Paso Robles, Edna Valley, Santa Maria Valley and Santa Ynez.Owner and veteran winemaker, Bob Lindquist is an original Rhône Ranger, trailblazing American-made Syrah and domestic Rhône-style grape production since 1982. Lindquist states: “A Modern Red and A Modern White enables us to meet the market’s increasing demand for value-driven wines, introduce Central Coast-style wine to a younger class of wine consumers, and ensure that we maintain our exceptional quality focus on Syrah and other Rhône varietals. These wines are a reflection of our meticulous winemaking practices and the quality coming from California’s Central Coast.”The new tier features Qupé’s most recent wave of rebranding, a redesigned label. According to Lindquist, “Our Blends Tier label adds a youthful tone to our portfolio, yet remains anchored to the letter Q and our iconic California poppy blossom. Millennials gravitate toward contemporary design; this label invites a new generation of consumers to experience a complex and approachable style coming from the Central Coast.”About Qupé (www.Qupe.com)Qupé (kyoo-PAY) is one of California’s most storied wineries, spanning multiple vineyards across California’s Central Coast. Bob Lindquist, Founder, Winemaker and Partner of Qupé, started the winery in 1982. An original Rhône Ranger, Bob was one of the first to advocate for American-made Syrah and other Rhône varietals such as Grenache, Roussanne and Marsanne. As such, Qupé is celebrated as California’s preeminent producer of cool-climate Syrah and Rhône varietals. Qupé prides itself on making refined, elegant and drinkable wines that are structured and balanced with subtle nuances displaying the climate of the vintage and typicity of the terroir. Qupé produces four tiers of wines: Single Vineyard/Estate, Reserve, Core and Blends. In October 2013, noted wine investor, Charles Banks, purchased a controlling interest in Qupé, adding the brand to Banks’ Terroir Selections portfolio. (www.terroirlife.com)Advertisement ReddIt Linkedin TAGSfeaturedQupé Facebook Previous articleAfternoon Brief, July 1Next articleLong Meadow Ranch Names Brad Groper as VP of Sales Press Release Pinterest Email Twitter
To end a monumental year in 2015, the Vermont-based band Twiddle embarked on a cross-country tour supporting their first disc in the dual album, “PLUMP.” The quartet has now released a documentary that gives fans insight to their creative processes while recording the much-anticipated album.Interviews with the band and their fans give an inside look to the phenomenon that is Twiddle, as they make their stop at the Paradise Rock Club in Boston, MA for back to back sold-out shows.The hour-long documentary, filmed by Collective Visions also features live renditions of songs from “PLUMP,” as well as classic Twiddle jams and a special cover of “I’m Gonna Be (500 Miles)” by The Proclaimers. Watch it below: Songs Performed (in order of appearance):Indigo TriggerComplacent Race (tease)Brick of BarleyI’m Gonna Be (500 Miles) (Cover)FiveEncore: Lost in the Cold
Emma Smith (instructed by Beachcrofts (Bristol)) for the appellant; Anna Beale (instructed by Leigh Day & Co) for the respondent. The appellant employer (M) appealed against the employment tribunal’s finding that the respondent former employee (C) had suffered direct disability discrimination contrary to section 3A(5) of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. C was an executive director in an industry which paid high bonuses. He was successful in his work but had been told that he needed to widen his client base. In 2007 C severely injured his back and, as a result, his working hours and ability to entertain possible new clients were significantly reduced. At his appraisal, C was told that he had made a strong showing despite his injury. However, M noted that 65% of C’s revenue still came from one client. C was awarded a much lower bonus than the previous year and was later selected for redundancy. The tribunal found that C had been unfairly dismissed and had suffered direct disability discrimination in relation to his bonus and his dismissal. However, it also found that, in accordance with Malcolm v Lewisham LBC  UKHL 43,  1 AC 1399, a non-disabled comparator in similar circumstances would have been treated in the same way in relation to bonuses and selection for redundancy. The tribunal consequently dismissed C’s claims for disability-related discrimination under section 3A(1). M submitted that, as the tribunal had found that there was no disability-related discrimination because the Malcolm comparator would have been treated in the same way, there could not, on the same facts, be direct disability discrimination. Held: (1) Although the tribunal could, before considering other ingredients of the statutory tort, ask itself ‘the reason why’ for the alleged discriminatory treatment, a comparator was still required, Shamoon v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary  UKHL 11,  2 All ER 26 and Bahl v Law Society  IRLR 640 EAT applied. In the instant case, the tribunal had not constructed a comparator so far as direct discrimination was concerned, and had not explained what the discrimination was. The comparator for section 3A(1)(a) was a person in similar circumstances to the claimant who either did not have the claimant’s disability or was not disabled, or where the circumstances of the comparator were unconnected with the claimant’s disability, and Malcolm had rendered the scope of section 3A(1)(a) for all practical purposes to be the same as for direct discrimination under section 3A(5). Therefore, if the case on disability-related discrimination failed, it was difficult to see how the same allegations relied upon in support of that case could found a successful claim for direct discrimination; if the claimant had not demonstrated that he had suffered less-favourable treatment, both claims would fail, Edinburgh City Council v Dickson, unreported, 2 December  EAT (SC) applied. The tribunal therefore appeared to have confused the test of determining direct discrimination under section 3A(5) with the pre-Malcolm test of disability-related discrimination, Malcolm applied. Furthermore, it was unclear whether the tribunal considered there was direct discrimination for reasons other than unfair dismissal, failure to increase the client base and in connection with the bonus. If the tribunal did consider that the direct discrimination related to other matters, it was not clear what those might have been and who would have been the appropriate actual or hypothetical comparator, if not the comparator identified for the purposes of disability-related discrimination. If the tribunal considered that a comparator who had failed to widen his client base would have been treated differently it should have said so. (2) The matter would be remitted to the tribunal to determine whether there had been direct disability discrimination on grounds other than the bonus, dismissal or failure to increase the client base. Appeal allowed. Discrimination – Comparators – Reasons – Unfair dismissal JP Morgan Europe Ltd v R Chweidan: EAT (Judge Serota QC, A Gallico, K Mohanty): 26 August 2010
Building readers will know it’s now only months before the much-heralded government deadline for introducing so-called “Level 2” building information modelling (BIM) for all centrally procured public sector work. The BIM roll-out may not stop there, but either way, there will soon be billions of pounds of procurement at stake.It’s widely held that building services design and installation, and most notably the mechanical and electrical activity, can typically account for around 40-50% of the cost of a building project. So, with vast sums of public-sector contracts in the offing, the ECA embarked on a major building services BIM readiness survey to find out how prepared the sector is, and what its issues are. The survey, developed with major partners CIBSE and BSRIA and with active support from a range of sector bodies, asked 30 key questions, and the results are now in. Interestingly, out of nearly 350 respondents, just under half were building services contractors, meaning that just over half were others associated with the sector – but who clearly felt strongly enough about BIM to complete our survey. These “significant others” included building services consultants, main contractors and manufacturers. Noting that even now, there are various takes on what Level 2 BIM means, we were keen that all the survey respondents had a common view of what BIM is. So, for the purpose of the survey, we gave a working description of Level 2 BIM as: “The process of working with digital building information, including data-rich objects, effectively shared between those who are building and/or maintaining the building and its services.” This level of BIM, we added, “involves using tools such as COBie, BS/PAS 1192, Soft Landings and the BIM Protocols”. We then asked the respondents if they agreed with this working description. We were pleased (and somewhat relieved) to find that two in three (67%) “broadly agreed”, and only 12% thought we were off beam.One conclusion we draw from the initial findings is that those who talk about BIM Level 3 need to be mindful that those who can handle BIM Level 2 are still in the minorityHaving set the tone, we have first set about reviewing the response from building services contractors (BSC). What stands out was that fewer than one in six BSCs (16%) say they are “fully ready” to use BIM. Furthermore, many BSCs are struggling with key elements of Level 2 BIM: when asked about a common data environment (CDE), 31% said they were “broadly ready” but 20% responded with stunning honesty to tell us that they did not know what a CDE was. Around one in three BSCs said they already had a grip on “employer’s data requirements” and the “BIM Execution Plan”, but some 40% did not know what these elements were. For those who like their glass half full, over 30% of BSCs say they are in good shape, right now, to deal with BIM. Similarly, 54% of BSCs believed that BIM is “the future for building services”, while 47% thought BIM was “the future for project information”.But when over one in three BSCs (35%) also say they are “not ready at all”, it seems that many respondents are telling us that they need help. On the subject of help, despite all that has been said and written about BIM, 67% of BSCs told us there is not “enough practically useful and publicly available information on using BIM”. The most useful sources of information were cited as “a BIM task group” (32%), followed by “CAD vendors”, “BIM consultants” and “company colleagues” (all around 20%), with the ECA and a number of trade and professional bodies close behind. Of course, contractor size and capability plays a big part in BIM engagement. Our survey confirms that most of the larger building services contractors are in good shape, or expect to buy in what they need, should they need it – but that the picture changes dramatically for smaller contractors. Some BSCs feel that BIM is not coming their way any time soon: yet contractors will be receiving BIM project tender documents if they want to work on centrally funded projects in the near future.One conclusion we draw from the initial findings is that those who talk about BIM Level 3 need to be mindful that those who can handle BIM Level 2 are still in the minority. BIM Level 3 – the “really hard” version of BIM – needs to go to the back of the queue. There are plenty more findings from our BIM readiness survey and we will be releasing new data in the coming weeks. We are working with our key partners, and others in the industry, to address the survey findings, and to produce targeted outputs to help the sector better understand and become engaged with Level 2 BIM. The first output is likely to be a practical “BIM ready?” checklist, this November. There are some big gaps to fill as the government’s BIM roll-out approaches, but ready or not, the only place to start from is right here, right now.Paul Reeve is director of business services at the ECA
The consignment consisted of 87 packages, with a total weight of 1,303.7 tonnes. Freight Traders was responsible for receiving and storing the components at the port.The company also provided stevedoring services, completed a lashing survey and organised the charter of the vessel to the port of destination.In a separate project, Freight Traders cooperated with Orchid Shipping, part of the Parekh Group, to move water treatment equipment from India to Rarotonga, the Cook Islands.The consignment included oversized tanks, measuring 4.55 m tall.Freight Traders was tasked with loading, securing and transporting the water tanks to Chennai port as well as coordinating the onward transportation to the port of Rarotonga.Both Freight Traders and Orchid Group are members of the XLProjects (XLP) network.freightraders.co.nzwww.xlprojects.net
Lockheed Martin has announced its next generation radar technology: the Digital Array Row Transceiver (DART). Based on Gallium Nitride (GaN) technology, DART results in greater performance within current Lockheed Martin radar products and lowers life-cycle costs due to an increase in energy efficiency. GaN is a low-risk solution whether part of a systems upgrade or in a newly built system.DART improves upon Lockheed Martin’s ground-based radar products that have a proven record of reliability for dozens of customers around the world. This new technology is available in the recently launched TPS-77 Multi Role Radar system and is fully compatible with legacy products (TPS-77, TPS-59, FPS-117) and can help extend a radar’s useful life.Lockheed Martin unveiled DART at its regular radar users’ conference in Orlando, Florida. Representatives from more than 25 countries attended the unique event where they learned from Lockheed Martin experts and shared best practices.They have produced and maintain more than 175 surveillance-range radars, all of which are operational around the world detecting targets at ranges up to 250 miles, 24 hours a day. These radars are capable of operating completely unmanned and many have performed for decades in remote, inhospitable areas and in a wide range of operational environments. No Lockheed Martin FPS-117, TPS-77 or TPS-59 radar has ever been taken out of service and the systems continue to operate well beyond their original 20-year service lives (many planned to operate for more than 40 years). This longevity is a direct result of continuous Lockheed Martin investment in state-of-the-art technology and dedication to customer success.
[av_one_full first min_height=” vertical_alignment=” space=” custom_margin=” margin=’0px’ padding=’0px’ border=” border_color=” radius=’0px’ background_color=” src=” background_position=’top left’ background_repeat=’no-repeat’ animation=”][av_heading heading=’Spurs makes third win at home’ tag=’h3′ style=’blockquote modern-quote’ size=” subheading_active=’subheading_below’ subheading_size=’15’ padding=’10’ color=” custom_font=”][/av_heading][av_textblock size=” font_color=” color=”][todaysdate][/av_textblock][av_textblock size=” font_color=” color=”]SAN ANTONIO – Kawhi Leonard scored 26 points and the San Antonio Spurs played their second consecutive solid home game, holding off the Boston Celtics, 108-101, on Wednesday night (Thursday in Manila). Spurs point guard Tony Parker had 16 points, including 10 in the final period.Parker was 8-for-15 from the field, including a turn-back-the-clock, teardrop floater in the first quarter over a hard-charging Amir Johnson after crossing over Marcus Smart.Pau Gasol had 17 points and 13 rebounds for San Antonio, which has won three straight at the AT&T Center after dropping three of its first four at home. The Spurs (20-5) are 7-4 at home after matching an NBA record with a 40-1 mark last season.The Spurs had 33 assists on 44 field goals while shooting 55 percent from the field.Boston was without injured leading scorer Isaiah Thomas. San Antonio rested starting power forward LaMarcus Aldridge, and both teams showed off their depth.David Lee, who started in place of Aldridge, had eight points and 10 rebounds.Avery Bradley had 25 points and 10 assists for the Celtics, and Boston got 34 points from its bench.San Antonio came out on top in a game of big runs to win its 11th straight over Boston.The Celtics turned a 38-28 deficit into a one-point advantage with a 15-4 run with three minutes left in the first half. The Spurs responded by outscoring Boston 14-4 to close the half and continued their run by opening the third on a 14-8 spurt in capturing a 70-55 lead.Leonard had nine points in the surge, including an open 3-pointer in the right corner and a breakaway dunk. Boston then outscored San Antonio 18-4 to pull to 74-73 with a minute left in the third quarter.Parker went 5-fo- 6 in the final period to help seal the Spurs’ victory. (AP)[/av_textblock][/av_one_full]