Cesar Peres Dulac Müller logo

CPDMA BLOG

Category:
Date: January 24, 2020
Posted by: CPDMA Team

Coca-Cola goes to court against Heineken for 'corporate fraud'

Company requests cancellation of the purchase of Brasil Kirin by the Dutch group.

Coca-Cola Brasil and its national associations of manufacturers have filed a request with the Court of Justice of the State of São Paulo (TJSP) to annul the purchase of Brasil Kirin by Heineken and to condemn the Dutch group, together with Cervejarias Kaiser Brasil and Bavaria SA, to pay compensation for fraudulent “corporate manoeuvres”. The case was revealed by the newspaper Valor Econômico. Read the entirety of the initial.

Coca-Cola's claim is that there was an alleged breach of the Dutch exclusivity agreement for the distribution of alcoholic beverages with Coca-Cola bottlers. The deal, according to Coca-Cola's lawyers, was signed in 1993.

According to the initial petition, signed by the law firms Sergio Bermudes and E.Munhoz Advogados, the purchase of Brasil Kirin by Heineken, through its subsidiary, Bavaria, was an “illicit” act that broke the exclusivity agreement previously signed and brought financial losses to Coca-Cola.

“This action represents another chapter in the saga of the Coca-Cola Distribution System to prevent the realization of the opportunistic maneuver engineered by the Heineken Group, in an attempt to evade the clear contractual provisions freely agreed (and fulfilled) by the defendants themselves for many decades” , asserts the petition.

The case was also discussed in an arbitration procedure at the Brazilian Center for Mediation and Arbitration (CBMA), as a way of preventing the dispute from taking place in the Judiciary. According to the initial petition, the arbitration award unanimously condemned Heineken to fully comply with all contractual terms agreed between the parties, including the right of exclusivity. 

Despite the decision, the arbitration court found itself incompetent to analyze the scope of the exclusivity right provided for in the contracts and assess whether Heineken and its subsidiaries acted unlawfully to circumvent the exclusivity right provided for in the contractual instruments.

According to Coca-Cola, Bavaria would not have a real business purpose, that is, it would only serve to facilitate the acquisition of Brasil Kirin. This facilitation would occur through a process known as goodwill, which consists of the creation of an intermediary holding company, which would be Bavaria, with the objective of only reducing the incidence of taxes during the purchase transaction. 

For the lawyers, “the vehicle that currently serves as an instrument to circumvent the authors' exclusive rights is Bavaria itself”. 

Alaska Project

Part of the conflict between the two beverage brands centers on the so-called “Alaska Project”, a negotiation between Heineken and Brazilian Coca-Cola makers for the joint purchase of Brasil Kirin. 

However, in 2016, according to the initial petition, there was an “attempted corporate coup”. This is because, on the eve of the approval by the Administrative Council for Economic Defense (Cade) of the purchase of Brasil Kirin, the lawyers claim that there was a radical change in posture on the part of the Dutch company. 

The Heineken Group would have broken with the product distribution relationship originally maintained with distributors, starting to distribute all its products through the Brasil Kirin network.

“It so happens that, maliciously, at the same time that they sought the support of the Coca-Cola Distribution System for the acquisition of Brasil Kirin, the defendants began to jointly orchestrate a corporate maneuver against the authors of this action”, they allege. the lawyers in the initial petition. 

For the lawyers, the stance, in addition to violating the principles of good faith and contractual loyalty, also violates “the most rooted principles of our corporate law”.

Cervejaria Kaiser Brasil SA stated that “it is not in a position to comment on the points raised by the report, since it has not received any citation about the alleged action and, therefore, is completely unaware of the existence of the case. In any case, the arguments brought by the report seem to be a mere repetition of the discussions that took place in the arbitration, which is not subject to any type of appeal.”

The case is being processed under number 1004486-07.2020.8.26.0100.

Source: Alexandre Leoratti via Jota.

Return

Recent posts

The STJ decides that stock options (option to purchase shares or quotas) cannot be seized.

On November 5th, the 3rd Panel of the Superior Court of Justice ruled, through the judgment of REsp 1841466[1], under the rapporteurship of Minister Ricardo Villas Bôas Cueva, on the impossibility of seizing stock options. The case focused on the possibility of a third party exercising the right to purchase shares in […]

Read more

Governance in family businesses: essential structures and instruments

A governança corporativa em empresas familiares tem ganhado cada vez mais relevância no cenário empresarial brasileiro, no qual cerca de 90% das empresas possuem controle familiar. A ausência de um planejamento adequado para a sucessão do negócio e a dificuldade de manter a harmonia nas relações familiares, em muitos casos, culminam no fracasso da empresa […]

Read more
Resolution No. 586/2024 of the CNJ and the Future of Agreements in Labor Justice

On 09/30/2024, the National Council of Justice (CNJ) unanimously approved Resolution No. 586 through Normative Act 0005870-16.2024.2.00.0000, which regulates the agreement between employee and employer in the termination of the employment contract, through approval by the Labor Justice system, with full settlement of the contract. In other words, […]

Read more
The Legitimacy of Associations and Foundations to Request Judicial Reorganization and the New Stance of the STJ.

At the beginning of October, the 3rd Panel of the STJ, by majority vote, issued a decision in four special appeals (REsp 2.026.250, REsp 2.036.410, REsp 2.038.048, and REsp 2.155.284), ruling against the active legitimacy of nonprofit foundations to request Judicial Reorganization. This unprecedented decision appears, at first glance, […]

Read more
Government of RS Establishes Recovery Program II: Installment Plan for Companies Under Bankruptcy Protection

The Government of the State of Rio Grande do Sul has instituted the Recovery Program II through Decree No. 57,884 of October 22, 2024, with the objective of allowing the installment of tax and non-tax debts for entrepreneurs or business entities under bankruptcy protection, including taxpayers whose bankruptcy […]

Read more
Renegotiation of BRL 60 Billion in Debt for Companies Under Bankruptcy Protection Regularized by PGFN

With information from Valor Econômico newspaper. Original article link: http://glo.bo/3NOicuU Since 2020, the Office of the Attorney General of the National Treasury (PGFN) has been advancing negotiations to regularize debts of companies under bankruptcy protection, resulting in the renegotiation of approximately BRL 60 billion. The number of regularized companies has tripled, reaching 30% of cases, thanks to a more collaborative approach from the […]

Read more
crossmenuchevron-down
en_USEnglish
linkedin Facebook pinterest youtube lol twitter Instagram facebook-blank rss-blank linkedin-blank pinterest youtube twitter Instagram