Advance Polybag, Inc.
This article is outside of Ballotpedia's coverage scope and does not receive scheduled updates. If you would like to help our coverage scope grow, consider donating to Ballotpedia.
| Advance Polybag, Inc. | |
 | |
| Basic facts | |
| Location: | Sugar Land, Texas |
| Type: | Corporation |
| Top official: | Janak Sheth, Chief Financial Officer[1] |
| Year founded: | 1986 |
| Website: | Official website |
Advance Polybag, Inc. (API), as of 2019, was a plastic retail bags manufacturer based in Sugar Land, Texas. The company was founded in 1986.[1] The company is active in supporting and opposing state ballot measures.
Background
As of 2019, Advance Polybag, Inc. was a plastic retail bags manufacturer founded in 1986. The company was headquartered in Sugar Land, Texas, and had manufacturing facilities throughout the U.S. as of 2019.[2] As of 2019, the company was a minority-owned business and was a member of the National Minority Supplier Development Council (NMSDC). Advance Polybag manufactured bags for supermarkets, convenience stores, fast-food restaurants, and manufactured specialized bags such as clothing retail bags, produce bags, and wet umbrella bags.[1] API was a member of the American Progressive Bag Alliance (APBA), a part of the Society of the Plastics Industry Trade Association.[2]
Political activity
Ballot measure activity
2016 activity
In the 2016 election cycle, Advance Polybag supported the passage of California's Dedication of Revenue from Disposable Bag Sales to Wildlife Conservation Fund proposition, which proposed to redirect money collected from the sale of carry-out bags by grocery or other retail stores to a special fund administered by the Wildlife Conservation Board.[3] Advance Polybag was one of the top donors to the main support committee of proposition 65, which is called the American Progressive Bag Alliance, A Project of the Society of the Plastics Industry (nonprofit 501(c)(6)), Yes on 65 and No on 67.[3]
The short summary text of the measure read as follows:[4]
| “ |
Redirects money collected by grocery and certain other retail stores through mandated sale of carryout bags. Requires stores to deposit bag sale proceeds into a special fund to support specified environmental projects. Fiscal Impact: Potential state revenue of several tens of millions of dollars annually under certain circumstances, with the monies used to support certain environmental programs. [5] |
” |
At the same time, the company supported a veto of California's Plastic Bag Ban Veto Referendum, which proposed to uphold or ratify the contested legislation banning plastic bags that was enacted in 2014 by the California State Legislature under the name Senate Bill 270.[6] The company had supported this bill through contributions made to the committee called the American Progressive Bag Alliance, A Project of the Society of the Plastics Industry (nonprofit 501(c)(6)), Yes on 65 and No on 67, which supported a veto on this issue.[3]
Overview of ballot measure support and opposition
The following table details the Advance Polybag's ballot measure stances available on Ballotpedia:
| Ballot measure support and opposition for the Advance Polybag, Inc. | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Ballot measure | Year | Position | Status |
| California Proposition 65, Dedication of Revenue from Disposable Bag Sales to Wildlife Conservation Fund (2016) | 2016 | Supported |  Defeated
|
| California Proposition 67, Plastic Bag Ban Veto Referendum (2016) | 2016 | Supported a veto |  Approved
|
Noteworthy events
City of Dallas lawsuit
In May 2015, Advance Polybag, along with Hilex Poly Co. LLC, Superbag Operating, Ltd., the Inteplast Group, Ltd., filed a lawsuit against the city of Dallas. The lawsuit alleged that the city's ordinance requiring retailers to charge a nickel for single-use bags violated the Texas Solid Waste Disposal Act. The claimants argued that the city's ordinance violated the section that states, "a local government or other political subdivision may not adopt an ordinance, rule, or regulation to ... assess a fee or deposit on the sale or use of a container or package," according to a report from The Dallas Morning News.[7] Advance Polybag and the coalition released a statement, which stated that the lawsuit "highlights distinct legal problems within the Ordinance that infringe on the rights of retailers and low-income families. By forcing store owners to recite the city’s environmental message with signs inside their store and out, the Ordinance violates both the state and federal constitution by compelling speech. At the same time, the Ordinance violates federal regulations by imposing the bag tax on items purchased with food stamps. Beyond the legal concerns themselves, the Ordinance is problematic for both local businesses and residents alike. Store owners are forced to shoulder additional cost burdens by purchasing alternative bags that are more expensive."[7] The city argued that Hilex Poly Co. LLC had supported the fee in the early stages of the ordinance's development and was "disappointed" by the lawsuit.[7] In June 2015, the city of Dallas repealed the ordinance.[8]
ChicoBag Company lawsuit
In 2011, several plastic bag manufacturers, including Advance Polybag and Hilex Poly Co. LLC, filed a lawsuit against ChicoBag Company, a northern-California-based reusable bag company. The lawsuit argued that information regarding the recycling rate of plastic bags on ChicoBag's website was misleading and false. The information was from an archived EPA webpage, which the plastic manufacturers argued was "removed and retracted" by the EPA.[9][10] The companies also alleged that ChicoBag had "created an imitation EPA website to share false information" about plastic bag recycling.[9]
In September 2011, the companies agreed to a settlement. Both sides agreed to use up-to-date EPA stats on plastic recycling and include citations and dates for clarity. Hilex Poly removed its website thetruthaboutplasticbags.com and ChicoBag's insurance company made a financial settlement with the Hilex Poly, the only company that persisted with suit; Advance Poly had withdrawn. The lawsuit was a SLAPP suit, also known as a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation, which had been filed in South Carolina, where such suits are permitted. SLAPP prohibits a judge from determining if a case was filed to suppress legal speech.[9]
Recent news
The link below is to the most recent stories in a Google news search for the terms 'Advance Polybag, Inc.'. These results are automatically generated from Google. Ballotpedia does not curate or endorse these articles.
See also
External links
Footnotes
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 Bloomberg, "Company Overview of Advance Polybag, Inc.," accessed October 6, 2016
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 API, "About," accessed October 6, 2016
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 SOS of California, "AMERICAN PROGRESSIVE BAG ALLIANCE, A PROJECT OF THE SOCIETY OF THE PLASTICS INDUSTRY (NON-PROFIT 501 (C) (6)), YES ON 65 AND NO ON 67," accessed September 19, 2016
- ↑ California Secretary of State, "California General Election November 8, 2016, Official Voter Information Guide," accessed August 18, 2016
- ↑ Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
- ↑ Follow the Money, "Prop. 67, Top Opposing Donors," accessed September 19, 2016
- ↑ 7.0 7.1 7.2 The Dallas Morning News, "Update: Dallas city attorney is 'disappointed' that plastic bag makers are suing over 5-cent ordinance," May 2015
- ↑ Law 360, "Dallas Ends 5-Cent Plastic Bag Fee After Manufacturer Suit," June 3, 2015
- ↑ 9.0 9.1 9.2 The New York Times, "PR Battle Over Plastic Bags Ends in Court Settlement," September 19, 2011
- ↑ PR Newswire, "Bag Wars | Plastic Bag Giants Superbag and Advance Polybag Split From Hilex Poly, Drop Out of Lawsuit Against ChicoBag," September 13, 2011
| |||||||
