This has to be a joke
CHINESE beverage giant Wahaha Group has rejected a new cooperation plan put forward by French food group Danone, saying the ongoing peace negotiation is hard to continue, Wahaha said on Sunday. Danone proposed the two companies merge all their businesses to form a new company that will eventually be listed on the A-share market. Danone and Wahaha will each hold 40 percent of shares in the new company, leaving the remaining 20 percent as public shares.
Please tell me who thought this was a good idea.
Stan,
That was the last gasp of desperate air.
What I want to know is (1) who was representing Danone during the negotiation of original contracts and (2) what was their role in filing the trademark paperwork.
R
I would like to know the answer to (1) and (2) myself. With a ten-year period, I’m sure there were lots of outside and in-house lawyers that were responsible, which is bad because no one can take the responsibility.
Can you imagine being an in-house guy and having something like that land on your desk? I assume you would be sacked immediately; either way, I would probably soil my undergarments.
Stan,
If this were a external firm that dropped the ball… what is their exposure … hypothetically?
Danone has lost hundreds of millions/ billions from this, and surely in some small part that little Outlook reminder overlooked has lead to this….
R
I am actually surprised that this sort of thing does not lead to frequent lawsuits against service providers. We (lawyers) have all seen these sorts of train wrecks, but unless you have very clear evidence of who was responsible for what, and when, it is difficult to proceed with some sort of formal case. Can you imagine a judge somewhere, let’s say the US, trying to figure out the standard duty of care for a service provider dealing with this kind of case in China 10 years ago? Good luck.