Wahaha Wins Suit Against Danone Board of Director Case

Here is yet another update on the Danone v. Wahaha dispute---"Wahaha Wins Suit Against Danone Director for Conflict". In China, of course.

Danone-Wahaha Dispute: No End in Sight

As the Danone-Wahaha dispute drags on, no end seems near for each party in their multi-country, multi-continent war. Lately, Danone has received some good news, whereas Wahaha is feeling the heat of loosing its original lawyers in the United States and some adverse judicial rulings against its off-shore assets.

By way of background, the following are the battle fronts:

1. Danone v. Wahaha in arbitration in Stockholm

2. Danone v. Wahaha, Zong Qinghou’s daughter and wife, Wahaha off-shore companies in a Los Angeles Superior court

3. Wahaha v. Danone in arbitration in Hangzhou, China

4. Danone v. Wahaha off-shore companies in a British Virgin Islands court

5. Danone v. Wahaha off-shore companies in an American Samoa court

6. Wahaha v. Danone in derivative action in Shenyang Intermediate People’s Court in China

Wahaha was shocked to learn that its litigation lawyers withdrew from the representation in the case pending in Los Angeles. Some speculate that Latham & Watkins withdrew because its client provided false testimony. In any international litigation, changing lawyers midstream always adds a strain to the case, in terms of finances, preparedness, and possibly momentum. Wahaha quickly found new lawyers for its case, and let’s hope that the new lawyers will get up to speed on the case for Wahaha. Because of the change, it will probably take more time for the parties to conduct discovery, thus pushing the trial to a later date if they do not settle.

Bad news also arrived for Wahaha from the courts in the British Virgin Islands and the American Samoa. Reportedly, both courts ruled in favor of Danone, freezing assets [in Chinese only] of Wahaha’s off-shore companies in both jurisdictions, respectively. The courts also appointed receivers for said companies. (I do not know Danone’s causes of action in these two courts, after some research.) Given the two rulings, Wahaha should be evaluating its overall strategies because it has been defending itself in multiple jurisdictions, with less than satisfactory results. It is unknown whether Wahaha will challenge these rulings.

In addition, final arbitral decisions are also pending in Stockholm and Hangzhou.

Overall, Wahaha has a pretty tough road ahead, while Danone is having the upper hand on the legal matters. Of course, Danone’s business prospect in China is a totally different matter, since winning in courts does not naturally and necessarily translate into winning consumers’ hearts in China. Wahaha is apparently preparing for the worse by using a brand new trademark—Qili 启力.

With no end in sight for this international dispute, both parties are probably feeling the battle fatigue, and the bite of their legal fees. Will they try to work things out with some kind of compromise on their own? Will they attempt to reach some kind of agreement with the French president as an intermediary (if he chose to intervene during his trip to China)? Or will they continue the knock-down, drag-out fight? As far as Danone is concerned, the last option seems most likely if Wahaha does not give up a few inches, because Danone currently stands in a very strong position.

Wahaha v. Danone: My Arbitration is Better Than Yours (II)

Remember that Danone joined Wahaha’s chief Zong Qinghou personally as a defendant in the Stockholm arbitration (in May 2007)?

Remember that Wahaha filed for arbitration in Hangzhou Arbitration Commission in June 2007?

Have you been wandering how exactly Zong Qinghou can file a parallel arbitration in China while the original joint venture contract between Wahaha and Danone designated Stockholm as the venue for mandatory arbitration?

Apparently, Zong Qinghou, through the Chinese media, is shedding some light on his lawyer’s strategies behind this legal maneuver. His legal team points out a possibly lethal defense to Danone’s Stockholm arbitration against Zong personally.

As most American lawyers know, the first line of defense is through procedural challenge: jurisdiction or venue. And that is exactly what Zong’s lawyers are doing. They claim that the alleged breach of non-compete and non-disclosure agreements by Mr. Zong falls within the purview of the Chinese labor law, not commercial law since Mr. Zong was in a employment relationship with the Wahaha-Donone joint venture.

They further claim that the Chinese Labor law controls when labor disputes between parties within the boundaries of the P.R.China. See Article 2:

This Law applies to all enterprises and individual economic organizations (hereinafter referred to as employing units) within the boundary of the People's Republic of China and laborers who form a labor relationship therewith.

Upon establishing the proper law to be applied in the dispute between Danone and Zong personally, Zong’s lawyers employed their sharp weapon—arbitration arising under a labor dispute should be inside China pursuant to Article 79:

Where a labor dispute takes place, the parties involved may apply to the labor dispute mediation committee of their unit for mediation; if the mediation fails and one of the parties requests for arbitration, that party may apply to the labor dispute arbitration committee for arbitration. Either party may also directly apply to the labor dispute arbitration committee for arbitration. If one of the parties is not satisfied with the adjudication of arbitration, the party may bring the case to a people's court.

How about that?! Stockholm arbitration suddenly sounds irrelevant with respect to claims against Zong personally.

So what is Danone’s response to that? They countered, according to the report (Chinese only), that the non-compete and non-disclosure agreements were supported by nifty consideration and they should be enforceable. (note: this really makes no sense. Maybe the reporter did not understand Danone’s argument. Let’s assume that Danone did not respond.)

What are its possible responses?
--get around the employment relationship argument
--argue that Zong’s role in the joint venture was multi-faceted and being an employee was a minor part (weak)
--argue that even if the labor law applies, the parties’ original intent was to arbitrate all disputes in Stockholm

Anything else, folks?

Danone Group to Make Things Personal

According to a report, on July 19, 2007, four subsidiary companies of Danone, NOVALC Pte. Ltd., Festine Pte. Ltd., Jinja Investments Pte. Ltd. and Myen Pte. Ltd., initiated legal proceedings to file a derivative action against Zong Qingou, the former board chairman of the Danone-Wahaha joint venture. He resigned in June 2007 amid the intensifying disputes with Danone.

Essentially, this new lawsuit will be directly against Zong for his “illegal” activities while serving on the board of directors of the joint venture. The four shareholders of the joint venture will more than likely allege that Zong breached his fiduciary duty as a board member by engaging in competitive activities that injured the interests of the shareholders.

In addition, Danone also asserted claims directly against Zong in its Stockholm arbitration. [But I haven’t heard anything from that case lately.]

Wahaha & Danone Dispute: “The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly”

To my fellow Texans, “the good, the bad, and the ugly” may mean the University of Texas at Austin, the Texas A & M University at College Station, and the University of Oklahoma, depending on where your loyalty lies.

To those following Danone’s dispute with Wahaha Group, this unique expression bears extraterritorial meaning.

Back in 1996, the Danone + Wahaha joint venture (“Marriage” as the Chinese media puts it) seemed rosy, promising, and “good”. Danone had the capital, international management know-how, a world renowned brand name, and much more; Wahaha Group, on the other hand, had an evolving Chinese brand, the local market, and Zong Qinghou, Wahaha’s charismatic chief. As expected, the joint venture grew into something quite respectable, 39 sub-joint ventures and controlling market share in China’s beverage business.

A lot of “bad” surfaced ever since early spring 2007. Arbitration claims have been filed by both sides in China and Sweden; Danone sued Wahaha in a state court in Los Angeles. In response to attacks from Danone on both sides, Danone threatened to sue three foreign board members on the joint venture board, alleging breach of fiduciary duty.

The “ugly” is coming in like waves in this growing international show of will and force. First, responding to Wahaha’s arbitration petitions in the Hangzhou Arbitration Commission, Danone has filed counter claims. [full report here] According to Danone’s attorney Randal Lewis, so far
“there has been no circumstance or event that is sufficient to result in the termination of the rights and obligations of the parties under the Trademark Transfer Agreement.”

Second, Danone’s litigation lawyer in the case pending in Los Angeles, which is against Ever Maple Trading and Hangzhou Hongsheng Beverage Co, said that Danone has a witness who can testify against Zong. [full report here.] The witness, named Chen Zhonghua, claims that Zong forged Chen’s signature to set up companies overseas that compete against the Danone-Wahaha joint venture. If the “marriage” metaphor about the joint venture has any merits, this would the stage of the divorce where parties dig out as much dirt as possible against each other. [by the way, as of July 13, 2007 based on this Chinese report, Zong’s wife and daughter sued individually in L.A. have refused service of process.] Boy, this is getting ugly or what.

Third, Wahaha has joined forces with another party in another lawsuit against Mr. Qin Peng of Danone in the Intermediate People’s Court in Shenyang, Liaoning Province. [read about it here.] Wahaha Beverage Ltd. and Shenyang Lingdong Shiye Development, Ltd., respective shareholders of Wahaha Group, filed derivative suit against Qin Peng for breaching his fiduciary duty by serving on the board of other companies competing against the joint venture. They base their complaint on Article 149 and 152 of the Company Law of the P. R. China (2005), which provides shareholders a right to file a derivative suit against board members for breaching their fiduciary duty to the company.

More dirt out there?

Wikipedia has a pretty good entry on this dispute.

Wahaha Goes on the Offensive

On July 2, 2007, the chief of Wahaha Group, Zong Qinghou, announced in a press conference that Wahaha would sue three foreign members on the Danon-Wahaha joint venture companies' board within 30 days.

In the past few months since May 2007, Wahaha has been busy defending itself against Danon’s assault on several fronts. On May 9, Danon submitted its disputes with Wahaha Group and Zong Qinghou to arbitration in Stockholm; on June 4, Danon sued two companies managed by Zong’s wife and daughter in a California state court. On June 18, Zong feebly pulled a punch by declaring the trademark transfer agreement with Danon invalid, and submitted that to the Hangzhou Arbitration Commission.

Then Wahaha Group hired the biggest law firm in China -- King & Wood to pull off something big. If Wahaha does what it said, it will file a derivative action against 3 foreign board members: Emmanuel Faber, Francois Caquelin, Qing Peng (秦鹏). The thrust of its allegations is that these three Danon-Wahaha joint venture board members violated Company Law of the P. R. China. It will, allegedly, claim that the defendants violated their duty to be loyal to the joint venture companies as board members by serving on competitor companies’ boards. Wahaha reportedly would seek damages in the amount of 1 million yuan.

If this is the only substantive blaming stone that Wahaha and Zong have got to cast at Danon, the legal ramifications of this derivative action for Danon is less than what the Chinese media have done. Given nationalistic sentiments against Danon (the “foreign devil”), many distributors of Danon-Wahaha joint venture companies have ceased to sell and distribute their products. Legal fees and judicial assessment of damages against Danon would do far less damages than consumer sentiments. After all, that is what ultimately makes or breaks a company.

The saga continues; stay tuned.

Wahaha v. Danone: My Arbitration is Better Than Yours

Ok, this is getting really interesting!

Remember that Danone submitted the whole dispute to the Stockholm Institute of Arbitration on May 9, 2007? The arbitration is pending there in Sweden.

Remember that Wahaha also applied to have the Wahaha trademark transfer portion of the dispute with Danone arbitrated in the Hangzhou Arbitration Commission (“HAC”) on June 13, 2007?

In my last post, I was not sure whether HAC would take the case since the matter, on a bigger scale, is pending in Sweden.

But, surprise!! HAC accepted the petition for arbitration the very next day on June 14, 2007.

According to a report, Wahaha wants the HAC to determine whether the trademark transfer agreement, as a matter of law, is void since the Chinese Trademark Law requires such transfer to be approved by the China Trademark Office at the time of transfer (1996).

My hunch is that this might be Wahaha’s strongest argument. Wahaha Group in fact competed against Wahaha-Danone joint ventures; Wahaha Group actually used the trademark without the approval of the joint venture pursuant to the joint venture agreement. Therefore, without attacking the legality of the contract, Wahaha will have a very tough job in convincing the tribunals or a jury.

The next question that I anticipate to be raised after the “verdict” on the transfer issue is whether the contract in its entirety will be held as void. In my previous post, I discussed that Chinese Contract Law allows per se illegal clauses to be stricken in an otherwise enforceable contract. Assuming that the trademark transfer agreement is held as void by the HAC, will the original joint venture agreement (“Original Agreement”) survive the ordeal?

From a legal perspective, the rest of the Original Agreement should stand and continue to be effective given Article 56 of the Chinese Contract Law. But the really issue is what good is there for Danone if the Trademark transfer portion of the contract is void. Without the right to the Wahaha trademark, Danone’s joint ventures in China would only be a shell without its core value with which the Chinese consumers identify. Of course, Danone can rely on its own trademarks acquired elsewhere, but that is the topic of another day.

Wahaha v. Danone: Partnership at Grace’s End

When Danone Asia Pte Ltd. (“Danon Asia”) and other Danone subsidiaries located in Asia submitted the dispute to arbitration in Sweden, things between the two partners have turned from the good, to the bad, then to the ugly. And Danone has hired the British law firm Freshfields to represent it in the Swedish arbitration deal. As a side note, Article 26 of the Joint Venture Agreement stipulates that disputes between the contracting parties, if unresolved, are to be arbitrated in the Arbitration Institute of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce.

My research reveals some of the details of Danone’s contentions and complaints in the arbitration. The plaintiffs/petitioners are: Danon Asia, Jinjia Investments Ltd., Myen Ltd., Novalc Ltd. The defendants/respondents are: Wahaha Group Ltd., Wahaha Shiye Ltd., Hangzhou Food Ltd., Hangzhou Wahaha Investments Ltd.

The pith of Danone’s complaints is that Wahaha Group and its non-joint venture companies violated the original Joint Venture Agreement (“Original Agreement”) between Danone and Wahaha Group, and that such violation consequently resulted in the infringement of the trademark transfer clauses of the Original Agreement. Danone alleged that the defendants, without approval from the joint venture companies, manufactured products that are same as those of the joint venture companies. These products competed against the joint venture companies’ products, injuring the interests of the joint venture companies.

In addition to the corporate defendants, Danone also joined Mr. Zong, the former chairman of the board of directors of the joint venture companies and the man behind all the non-joint venture companies, as a defendant in the arbitration. Danone, expectedly, complained of Zong’s violation of the non-compete agreement (“NCA”) and non-disclosure agreement (“NDA”). And it also alleged that Zong created conflict of interests, violating his duty to the joint venture company as a board member.

In an attempted strategic move, Zong submitted the same case to the Hangzhou Arbitration Commission on Wednesday (June 13, 2007), hoping to capture a little bit of the home-court advantage. He avers that the trademark transfer clause in the Original Agreement is void for violation of the Chinese law at the time of contract in 1996, and that Danone fraudulently induced Wahaha into the contract.

From a legal stand point, Zong is caught in a tight spot. First, his choice of venue for arbitration is against the express provisions of the Original Agreement, notwithstanding his “need” of a friendly forum. Second, the disputes have already been accepted by the Stockholm Arbitration Institute, where Zong and the other four non-joint venture companies are defendants. So, whether the Hangzhou Arbitration Commission will dismiss the petition remains a very curious legal and possibly political riddle.

And then, to make thing a little more uncomfortable for Mr. Zong, Danone lit a fire in his back yard where he could not even get to. Danone’s lawsuit in Los Angeles against Ever Maple Trading Ltd., Hangzhou Hongsheng Beverage Co Ltd., and Zong’s daughter & wife really added “insult to injury.” Zong’s immediate response to this suit is to resign his position on the Danon-Wahaha Joint Venture board, which demonstrates how enraged he might have been. Aside from making him comfortable, Danone’ choice of forum in California could not have been better since here Danone is immune from the heat of nationalism manipulated by Zong, local politics in Hangzhou (the city is a shareholder of Wahaha Group, remember?), and unpredictable courts.

Good move, Danone! Smile…

[Tomorrow, I will talk about what I think Danone did wrong. Don’t laugh yet.]

Wahaha v. Danone: Who Will Have the Last Laugh?

The Wahaha and Danone dispute appears to have been kicked into high gear.

Following Danone’s lawsuit in California state court against a subsidiary company of Wahaha, the former board director of the Danon-Wahaha Joint Venture, Zong Qinghou, announced on June 13, 2007 in a press conference that he would submit the dispute between Wahaha and Danone to arbitration in China. Specifically, the dispute involves a trademark transfer agreement Wahaha and Danone. The venue of arbitration is the Hangzhou Arbitration Commission.

In order to follow the development of dispute, which has gone global literally, it is better grasp the chronology of the relationship between Wahaha and Danone.

First, the occasion warrants a brief intro of the players. Danone is currently one of the world’s leading global corporations in fresh dairy products and bottled water, and its production and sales spans around the world. Wahaha is a bit more complicated. Wahaha Group consists of three large blocks of corporate entities. The first is the original Wahaha Group Ltd., and the City of Hangzhou owns 46% of the stock, and the rest of stocks of the company are unevenly distributed among Mr. Zong, the management, and employees (before 2000, Wahaha Group was a solely state-owned enterprise). The second one is the Wahaha-Danone Joint Equity Venture Group. Wahaha Group Ltd. Controls 49% of the shares, and Danone holds 51%. The third bunch is a host of non-joint venture companies established and operated in essence by Wahaha Group Ltd. and Hangzhou Wahaha Food Products Ltd.

Second, the following is the chronology of the relationship between Danone and Wahaha.

1. 02/29/1996-----Joint Venture Agreement between Wahaha Group Ltd. and Danone, including trademark transfer agreement, non-compete agreement, and confidentiality agreement

2. 03/28/1996-----Wahaha Group Ltd., Danone, and a Hong Kong enterprise agreed to form five joint ventures in China.

3. 04/1996-----Mr. Zong became the chairman of board of directors of the said five joint ventures.

4. From 1996—2007, the original five joint ventures evolved into 39 joint ventures, and everybody made a ton of money.

5. Problems began to surface in 2000 after the reorganization of Wahaha Group Ltd., which became a private entity with the Hangzhou government holding 46% of its stocks. The reorganized Wahaha Group Ltd. began to establish its own joint ventures and separate subsidiary entities, which totaled 17 entities in a span of six years. Apparently, Wahaha Group Ltd. used the Wahaha-related trademark in violation of the Wahaha-Danone Joint Venture Agreement.

6. Danone kept quiet with respect to Wahaha Group’s use of the trademark and apparent breach of the non-compete agreement inherent in the Joint Venture Agreement.

7. In late 2006, Danone initiated an offer to buy all of Wahaha Group Ltd.’s companies which are developed outside of the Joint Venture Agreement, and Wahaha Group Ltd. rejected the offer. The dispute went public in early 2007, escalating into a full blown fight over the ownership and usage of the Wahaha trademark.

8. 05/09/2007, Danone Asia submitted the disputes with Wahaha Group Ltd. with respect to the Joint Venture Agreement to the Stockholm Arbitration Institute.

9. 06/04/2007, Danone sued, in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Ever Maple Trading, a company based in the British Virgin Islands, and Hangzhou Hongsheng Beverage, as well as two individuals related to these companies. The two companies are believed to have ties with Wahaha Group Ltd. and Mr. Zong.

10. 06/05/2007, Mr. Zong tendered his resignation as the chairman of the board of directors of the Wahaha-Daone Joint Venture.

11. 06/13/2007, Mr. Zong announced his plan to submit the trademark dispute arising out of the Joint Venture Agreement to the Hangzhou Arbitration Commission.

As can be seen, the facts of this dispute are complicated and convoluted, and both parties are engaging in interesting tactics to gain procedural advantages. I am trying to get my hands on the Joint Venture Agreement to see exactly what they agreed to in 1996. Tomorrow, I will blog about the thrust of both parties’ contentions in their respective arbitration, trial proceedings.