Atlanta, Georgia, U.S.A. -based Inland Seafood announced it is rebranding as Inland Foods as the company expands beyond seafood into a wider range of products.
In a release on 11 March, the company said the new rebranding initiative is aligns with its move into more premium products outside of the seafood category.
"Inland Foods marks a significant milestone in our company's journey," Inland Foods Founder and CEO Joel Knox said. “While seafood remains a cornerstone of our business, our new identity better represents the diverse range of products we've been sourcing and providing to foodservice and retail establishments for years.”
The company said its new rebrand “underscores the company’s commitment to growth and adaptability” as it begins a larger focus on gourmet meats, seasonal produce, specialty ingredients, and “other artisan-made goods.”
"Inland is more than just a seafood supplier; and through this rebrand, we aim to become the trusted partner that meets all of our customers' culinary needs," Inland Foods President Chris Rosenberger said. "Whether it's sourcing the finest products or working with our customers to provide customized solutions, Inland Foods is positioned as a comprehensive culinary resource committed to delivering the highest standards of quality and service in everything we do."
Rosenberger said post-rebrand, Inland will maintain its commitment to sustainability.
Inland Seafood was founded in 1977 and has grown to become one of the largest seafood distributors in the country, with a concentration in the U.S. Southeast. It is a leading packer of Maine lobster and a supplier of seafood and non-seafood specialty products for thousands of restaurants and retailers.
Inland Seafood was sold through an employee stock ownership plan to its own employees in 2017. Then, in 2023, employees filed a class-action lawsuit alleging its owners engaged in fiduciary mismanagement, accusing them of massively inflating the value of the company when it created the employee ownership plan.
That lawsuit has since been dismissed, with the judge finding the plaintiffs in the case did not attempt to pursue the claims through the administrative process outlined in the employee stock ownership plan, and filed the lawsuit just two weeks before the six-year statute of limitations expired.
