Pepsi faces $1.26 bln judgment after secretary lost a letter

Andem

dev
Mar 24, 2002
5,643
128
63
Larnaka
By Jonathan Stempel NEW YORK, Oct 28 (Reuters) - It's an expensive lesson on the importance of reading your mail. A Wisconsin judge has ordered PepsiCo Inc to pay $1.26 billion to two men who said it stole their idea to sell purified water after a secretary mislaid a document alerting the world's No. 2 soft drink maker the lawsuit existed. The case was reported earlier on Wednesday by The National Law Journal.



The judgment amount is equal to more than 20 percent of PepsiCo's reported annual profits in recent years, regulatory filings show. According to filings with the Jefferson County Circuit Court, Charles Joyce and James Voigt won the Sept. 30 judgment five months after first suing PepsiCo and two distributors.

The Wisconsin men said they talked with the distributors in 1981 about their idea to bottle and sell purified water and that PepsiCo later stole the idea by creating Aquafina. The complaint was filed on April 28, but PepsiCo said the legal department at its Purchase, New York headquarters was not alerted to the case until around Sept. 18, when secretary Kathy Henry received a letter for her supervisor Tom Tamoney.

Henry, however, put the letter aside and did not tell anyone about it or enter it into her log "because she was so busy preparing for a board meeting," according to PepsiCo's Oct. 13 motion asking the court not to enforce the judgment. The company said that, when Henry on Oct. 5 received a copy of the plaintiff's motion for the default judgment, she recalled the earlier letter and forwarded it, prompting the legal department to finally act.

It called Henry's earlier failure to forward the letter "excusable neglect." Henry said she has worked at PepsiCo for 20 years, another court filing shows. Joe Jacuzzi, a PepsiCo spokesman, said the lawsuit was without merit. He said it is "completely dubious" to argue the plaintiffs gave other companies trade secrets in 1981 and that PepsiCo used them 15 years later to develop Aquafina.

"While we acknowledge there was an internal process issue, we have been denied due process as we do not believe the plaintiffs complied with the legal requirements to properly serve PepsiCo with their motion for default judgment," he added. A lawyer for the plaintiffs did not return a call seeking comment. PepsiCo shares closed down 1 cent at $60.99 on Wednesday on the New York Stock Exchange. The case is Joyce v. PepsiCo Inc, Wisconsin Circuit Court, Jefferson County, No. 2009CV000391.

CNBC
 

#juan

Hall of Fame Member
Aug 30, 2005
18,326
119
63
1.26 billion. That is a lot of money to a couple guys who may or may not have been successful at selling bottled water. I think Pepsi was railroaded by a dopey judge.
 

Francis2004

Subjective Poster
Nov 18, 2008
2,846
34
48
Lower Mainland, BC
While this is making life difficult for Pepsi, you need to wonder if Coke is preparing its Christmas Ad based on a new letter lost in the mail to Santa to rub it in.. However I am sure Coke is checking to ensure they did not have similar issues.

I saw this on TV and understand Pepsi is filling a request for appeal.
 

#juan

Hall of Fame Member
Aug 30, 2005
18,326
119
63
I can understand a judge awarding damages to someone who's been hurt or injured in some way by a big corporation but even a big mean corporation deserves a subpoena or some kind of formal notification. The 1.26 billion dollar judgement has no doubt caught their attention.


 

coldstream

on dbl secret probation
Oct 19, 2005
5,160
27
48
Chillliwack, BC
My guess is this will be automatically appealed. And the claimants will likely lose, since they neither invented water or bottles.

It's a sign of how litigious the American civil jurisprudence has become. It costs billions in frivolous and fraudulant lawsuits, especially in the medical field. It's a parasite, in its current infestation, on the productive economy.

The biggest donators to American political parties are trial lawyer associations, which is why Tort reform never sees the legislative light of day.
 

AnnaG

Hall of Fame Member
Jul 5, 2009
17,507
117
63
Although I dislike huge corporations and I think the odea of profit over people is despicable, I think the judge is on drugs. But then I am only going by what I read.

Pepsi appeals. $1.26 billion is a inane judgement over a misplaced letter. What an idiot.
 

gerryh

Time Out
Nov 21, 2004
25,756
295
83
lol.... I love this...the Judge is at fault:roll:

If they , the complainants, were able to prove to the judge(which obviously they were) that they served Pepsico properly and legally, then he, the judge, really had no choice but to award what the complainants asked for since the defendants didn't show up. Now, the ball is in Pepsico's court to prove that they have grounds to appeal the decision. "Oooops" in not a valid legal reason for anything.
 

AnnaG

Hall of Fame Member
Jul 5, 2009
17,507
117
63
Who said anything about it being a judge's fault? You did.
It's probably Pepsi's fault, but the judge still seems to be off his nut.
 

gerryh

Time Out
Nov 21, 2004
25,756
295
83
Who said anything about it being a judge's fault? You did.
It's probably Pepsi's fault, but the judge still seems to be off his nut.


why? It's a default judgment, a no brainer, the defendant didn't show up, the complainant get's what they asked for. That's the law.
 

AnnaG

Hall of Fame Member
Jul 5, 2009
17,507
117
63
why? It's a default judgment, a no brainer, the defendant didn't show up, the complainant get's what they asked for. That's the law.
You know American law that well, huh?
We shall see if the appeal application is granted and on what grounds.
 

#juan

Hall of Fame Member
Aug 30, 2005
18,326
119
63
It's the crooks cheating the crooks!

It's a great marketing gimmick: A bottle of water with a clean, blue label showing images of snow-capped mountains and the claim, "Pure water, perfect taste." That's the image created by Pepsico's Aquafina brand of water, and many consumers leap to the incorrect conclusion that Aquafina is sourced from mountain spring water.

In reality, Aquafina comes from tap water. Yes, the same water you get when you turn on your kitchen faucet. Of course, Aquafina is filtered, purified and perhaps even enhanced with trace amounts of added minerals, but it's certainly not mountain spring water. It's just processed tap water -- the same stuff that fills your toilet bowl when you flush.

Both the International Bottled Water Association (IBWA) and the FDA believe there's really no need to require bottled water manufacturers to admit their products come from tap water. No surprise there -- both these organizations routinely act to protect the interests of powerful corporations, and when it comes to bottled water, the biggest companies are often those sourcing the lowest quality water (such as tap water).
 

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
150
63
The two distributors showed up on the proper dates...without Pepsi reps. That's pretty funny. Kind of blows the Pepsi argument when two of the other companies named in the lawsuit show up.
 

gerryh

Time Out
Nov 21, 2004
25,756
295
83
The two distributors showed up on the proper dates...without Pepsi reps. That's pretty funny. Kind of blows the Pepsi argument when two of the other companies named in the lawsuit show up.


rofl..... well... we'll see if pepsi's high powered corporate lawyers can get em outa this jam.
 

#juan

Hall of Fame Member
Aug 30, 2005
18,326
119
63
rofl..... well... we'll see if pepsi's high powered corporate lawyers can get em outa this jam.

The reason this judgement should not continue is that Pepsi probably employs a quarter of a million people. Do these people deserve to be thrown out of work by a frivolous judgement?
 

karrie

OogedyBoogedy
Jan 6, 2007
27,780
285
83
bliss
The reason this judgement should not continue is that Pepsi probably employs a quarter of a million people. Do these people deserve to be thrown out of work by a frivolous judgement?

So companies should be excused of wrong doing to spare jobs? I think not.