Honesty integrity and fairness?

GOTCHA by Jarius Bondoc, 24 April 2009, The Philippine Star
(Original feed appears online here)

"My friends at the Philippine branch of a multinational coffee-dairy maker must fix the stink about their sales manager and a distributor. The story is going around town. The food giant’s female sales boss not only is having an affair with their distributor’s married general manager, but also has caused the latter to abscond with company funds. The distributor’s owners are scandalized that the multinational has chosen to treat the affair as one of consenting adults, instead of a conflict of interest. That’s bad, since the multinational’s vaunted primary corporate policies are honesty, integrity and fairness."

* * *

Nandu vs. Cory

"Nandu Nandkishore: The Nestle Executive Who Disrespected Cory Aquino!"

by The EQualizer Post, 15 April 2011
Full and original article appears here.


Image from The EQualizer Post

Frits van Dijk, head of Nestle’s business in Asia, Oceania, Africa and the Middle East, will retire in September. Nandu Nandkishore, who became head of Nestle’s nutrition unit last year, will replace him.

We do not believe that it is morally acceptable for Nestle to promote senior executives even if they cheat during their overseas assignments, deceive and cover-up serious misdeeds, treating shareholders and the public as gullible fools.
Are cherished Nestle values not important anymore? Are controversial executives just "kicked upstairs" in Nestle? If so, this would be a great insult to all the honest and competent executives in Nestle worldwide!

Some companies are not content with just being monopolies.

They have to be bullies and hypocrites.

Take the case of a multinational that espouses “trust, integrity and honesty.”

Alas, their behavior is the exact opposite.

A curious case involves one distributor who discovered a sexual affair between their top officer and the sales manager in charge of their account.

Instead of addressing the blatant conflict of interest, guess what the multinational did when this was brought to the officers’ attention?

They illegally terminated the distributor’s contract, and threatened him so he would remain silent.

It’s enough to make you spit in your coffee and throw it at their faces. Ramon Tulfo (Philippine Daily Inquirer)

My friends at the Philippine branch of a multinational coffee-dairy maker must fix the stink about their sales manager and a distributor. The story is going around town. The food giant’s female sales boss not only is having an affair with their distributor’s married general manager, but also has caused the latter to abscond with company funds. The distributor’s owners are scandalized that the multinational has chosen to treat the affair as one of consenting adults, instead of a conflict of interest. That’s bad, since the multinational’s vaunted primary corporate policies are honesty, integrity and fairness. Jarius Bondoc (Philippine Star)

Several months ago, I wrote about this food multinational corporation that was bullying one of its Filipino distributors. Considered the world’s largest food and drink company, this multinational had terminated its contract with a distributor and had threatened to do the same with another distributor. The reason stated was conflict of interest.
The alleged conflict of interest was based on Distributor 1’s shareholders’ discovery that one of its executives, a married man, was having an affair with a sales executive of the multinational. The relationship led to double the amount of discounts on the multinational’s goods given to retailers (such as groceries) by the executive. This led to brisk sales, but at a loss to the distributor.

The multinational made money all right because it sold its brands, and their executive got recognition and financial incentives because of her performance. However, all these were at the distributor’s expense. Even more disturbing, an independent audit showed that there were “phantom deliveries” of products to the distributor, non-existent goods, but still paid for because of the connivance between the parties to the illicit affair.
* * *
When the distributor brought up the illicit relationship to the multinational executive’s superiors, they shrugged it off as an affair between two consenting adults. This was despite the company’s Corporate Code of Ethics that enjoins its management and employees to “avoid even the appearance of impropriety in its business relationships on behalf of the company.” In the code, there is also a provison that says “sanctions will be applied in the event of misconduct or abuse of established corporate standards.”

Well, sanctions were applied all right, but to the wrong party—my gulay, to the distributor!
Eventually, the multinational had a dialog with the distributor to settle their differences. Nothing came out of it.
As it turned out, this was not an isolated case. Another sales employee of the multinational coerced five Filipino distributors of the company in Central Luzon to pass on goods to Metro Manila wholesalers at 8 to 10 percent discount.
Manila distributors like Distributor 2 could not compete with such low prices, but because the multinational forced it to “hit targets at all costs,” it had no choice. In the process, it lost money.
* * *
My gulay, the distributors later found out that the customer offering preferential discounts was the executive’s husband. They discovered this when the checks they were given by the customer bounced. Upon investigation, the checks were traced to the executive’s account. And the distributors were not the only ones left holding the bag. Just when the couple’s scam was discovered, the executive’s husband got cash advances from the Metro Manila wholesalers for goods they never got. One of them even lost P22 million.
When the distributor approached the multinational for redress, the company did not accept any responsibility and instead offered to help only as far as paying for the distributors’ legal expense to sue. However, independent lawyers say the executive, by her verbal or written orders, some in documents with the multinational’s letterhead, bound the company to take responsibility by virtue of the doctrine of “apparent authority.”

What do you do with a bully who runs roughshod over its distributors? You take him to court!
Emil Jurado (Manila Standard)"

Nestle Centennial - is it worth celebrating?

"NESTLE CENTENNIAL In The Philippines: Is It Worth Celebrating?"
by The EQualizer Post, 10 April 2011
Full and complete article available here

The Nestle Centennial In The Philippines

John Miller , Say NO To Corruption!

No To Corporate Bribery and Union Busting!


No To Media Suppression!


No To Perjury!


No To Trade Bullying!

EQ POLL : What's Your Image of NESTLE?

Nestle is a trade and distributor bully in the Philippines.						33.45%
Milk powders produced in China by Nestlé contained traces of melamine.						17.75%
Nestle attracts global criticism for its infant-formula marketing policies, especially those conducted in developing countries.						11.6%
Nestle has been criticized for outsourcing and price-fixing.						9.56%
The world's leading nutrition, health and wellness company.						9.22%
Manufacturer of quality baby food, coffee, dairy products, breakfast cereals, confectionery, bottled water, ice cream, pet foods, more...						7.85%
Members of Nestlé Management at all levels are professional.						5.8%
Nestlé is conscious of its social responsibility, which is inherent in its long-term orientation.						4.78%

*All images and poll from The EQualizer Post

Nestle workers protest in Mendiola

Images from Keep and Share here

Click on link for more images of Nestle workers' protest in front of the Department of Labor!

Nestle workers protest

Image (and details) from There's Blood in Your Coffee here

Philippines Graphic responds to Nestle

"Nestle response has no legal basis - NPI distributors"

by Joel Pablo Salud

Published in Business Mirror and Philippines Graphic on 21 April 2011

(Original article available online here)

"Nestlé Philippines, Inc.’s (NPI’s) response to accusations of predatory pricing appears to be based on unfounded generalizations than what is actually founded on law.

Atty. Lorna Kapunan, counsel for Nestlé’s distributors, said what Nestlé has is a “vertical price agreement,” which is a competition restriction between firms that governs products made by NPI. This agreement “is still considered predatory pricing.”

Nestlé’s distributors have accused the biggest food conglomerate of predatory pricing, and ending distributorship agreements without so much as fundamental basis based on Philippine laws.

“The practice of vertical restraints are closely monitored by international courts, with many of the agreements being ruled as unlawful per se. NPI currently engages in the practice of setting a minimum price by which its Filipino distributors are required to sell their products. This does not take into consideration the operational costs shouldered by Filipino Small and Medium Enterprises to distribute the products. Decent profit margins are therefore very difficult to attain, considering capital outlay and the lack of marketing and promotional support from NPI.”

Counsel added that non-compliance with the low prices results in NPI threatening to end the distributorship agreement. Thus, small- and medium-scale entrepreneurs (SMEs) like FDI2 find themselves scrambling to reach break-even status by trying to honor the terms of agreement.

Nestlé Philippines’ head of Corporate Affairs Edith de Leon acknowledged in the reply that Nestlé products are not the cheapest in the market and that competition among lower-priced products remains intense. De Leon’s statement allegedly avoids the issue of vertical price agreements with its Filipino partners.

De Leon also stated that Nestlé complies with the country’s laws and standard trade practices, a statement Atty. Kapunan quickly puts in context. Kapunan stressed that NPI knows there are no standards on vertical price agreements in the Philippines.

The Senate is now in the thick of addressing this matter and other issues regarding antitrust through the promulgation of various bills in the Upper House.

According to Atty. Kapunan, by Swiss standards, NPI’s distributorship model is patently illegal. The standards laid down by the Swiss Competition Council in Switzerland would make NPI’s existing distributorship agreement here restrictive of trade, thus subject to penalties.

Similarly, she mentioned, that the case mentioned by de Leon filed with the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) was dismissed, not for lack of merit as she previously stated, but for lack of jurisdiction on the part of the DTI.

“While FDI2 has filed a motion for reconsideration of DTI’s decision, the case itself is public domain and anyone may see that DTI did not even delve into the merits of the case. To date, no case against NPI, with the exception of the one filed by FDI2 in DTI, has been dismissed,” Kapunan explained.

Moreover, accusations made against Nestlé by its distributors may not be quite as unfounded as the company would have the public believe.

In the case of “Nestlé Philippines, Inc. vs. FY Sons, Inc.” (05 May 2006, G.R. No. 150780), the Supreme Court ruled that FY Sons, also a Nestlé distributor, was lured to invest huge sums of money, time and effort in order “to abide by such distributorship agreement, and to develop market areas for [Nestlé’s] products.

Thereafter, Nestlé breached the distributorship agreement by committing various acts of bad faith such as, but not limited to, failing to provide promotional support, and concocting falsified charges to cause the termination of the distributorship agreement without just cause.”

These incidents are not new, Kapunan explained, as NPI executives John Miller, Shahab Bachani and Doreswamy Nandkishore have been charged with “perjury for issuing conflicting statements in their affidavits with respect to the policies of Nestlé in agreements with their distributors and other Filipino partner firms.”

Cases against Nestlé are now pending in the courts of Quezon City and Makati City. G"

People's Journal responds to Nestle

"Black coffee, anyone?"
by Willie S. Baun, PEOPLE'S JOURNAL, Streetlights, 14 April 2011
(Article hit the stands on 14 April 2011; original article available online here)

"PEOPLE who have been keeping their ears to the ground at the premises of Nestle Phils., Inc. in Rockwell, Makati are likely to hear rumblings in today’s meeting of the giant multinational food and beverage company’s stockholders not only here but all the way in a town by Lake Geneva in Switzerland.

What’s brewing, to shift to a familiar metaphor, is primarily the issue of predatory pricing filed against NPI by two of its long-time distributors, Service Edge and FDI Forefront.

Since the issue broke out in the open months ago, NPI sources said, there has been a flurry of communications from top honchos of the Swiss firm’s headquarters to its execs here. They are reportedly not pleased with how the issue has been handled by NPI and its legal teams.

Charges filed against NPI with state regulatory agencies cite the company for allegedly compelling its distributors to lower their prices – regardless of their operating costs, interest charges, and taxes. Consequently, some of them lost heavily and have had to lay off personnel. One of them has gone bankrupt.

Affected distributors have also filed criminal complaints of perjury at the Quezon City and Makati City courts against top NPI executives, two of whom have managed to sneak out of the country, thanks to the short arm of our law and justice system.

Is it true that one of the fugitive execs is now a member of the Nestle executive board in Switzerland while the other has been given a plum assignment in the United States? If so, nothing pays like predatory pricing does, indeed.

So, it may well be the creamer, as it were, of choice for the Nestle brew involved in yet another case. Tycoon Henry Sy’s Banco de Oro has likewise sued NPI for allegedly false and deceptive testimony.

Streetlights came out with this earlier, to which a rejoinder was supposed to be forthcoming two weeks ago. It did finally last Monday (PJ Editorial, April 11) but only to “celebrate” the NPI’s fealty to corporate social responsibility across 100 years, all of a century, of business in the country.

PJ sportingly joined NPI, and so does Streetlights to wit:

“But possibly its more significant exercise in this regard (CSR) is its commitment to work with the Department of Agriculture, the Land Bank of the Philippines and Banco de Oro, to infuse more pep in the country’s coffee industry.

“This supposed to pour some P3 billion into the venture, a major portion of which will reportedly be used to provide loans to coffee farmers in the country.

“For this, we say, ‘Cheers’. Let’s drink to that, and not with any alcoholic concoction, but with Nescafe, perhaps?” Heck, you can make that “with Nescafe, for sure,” and I wouldn’t mind because it’s been a fact of this old fogey’s life thrice a day for more than the years he can instantly remember.

In the meantime, it comes as no surprise to learn that this matter of multinational company brushes versus fair trade rules has not escaped the attention of the Senate. Yeah, that of the Senate President – Manong Johnny – who, since 2008 has been pushing for Anti-Trust legislation precisely to preempt foreign firms’ bullying of their local partners.

Black coffee time to sober up, Jose, and so is it for anyone who mistakenly believes corporate hooligans can only be from Nestle."

Pagbabalatkayo ng Nestle

"Pagbabalatkayo ng Nestle"
by Horacio Paredes, ABANTE, 14 April 2011
(Original article available online here)

"Kumpirmado umanong dalawang mataas na opisyal ng dambuhalang Swiss multinational company, Nestle Philippines Inc. (NPI), ang palihim na pumuslit palabas ng bansa matapos silang sampahan ng mga kasong kriminal ng dalawang Pinoy distributor.

Ang bigating duo ay sina dating NPI chairman at CEO Doreswamy Nandkishore at ex-Chief Finance Officer Peter Nozcek. Sa puntong ito, malinaw na naisahan tayo ng mga Swiso. Hindi kaya dapat panagutin din ang mga NPI officials na nagsabwatan upang makaeskapo ang dalawa?

Umano, si Nandkishore ay hinila pabalik sa Nestle, Switzerland samantalang si Nozcek ay nire-assign sa Amerika. Kasama sila sa mga criminal case na inihain laban sa higanteng food and beverage company na kailan lamang ay nagdiwang ng kanilang 100th year sa ating bansa. Sa mga press release, ipinagmamalaki ng kumpanya ang pagiging bahagi ng tahanang Pilipino sa loob ng 100 taon sa pamamagitan ng mga de-kalidad na produkto at magagandang serbisyo sa ating mga pamilya.

Subalit tila iba ang ipinapakita nila sa publiko at ang kanilang pakikitungo sa mga lokal nilang ka-partner sa negosyo tulad ng Forefront II Trading Corp. (FDI 2) at Service Edge Distributor Inc. (SEDI) na matagal na umano nilang iniisahan. Ito ang pinag-ugatan ng problema na nauwi sa demanda.

Isa sa mga patung-patong na hinaing ng grupong Pinoy ay ang pakikipagsabwatan at pakikipagrelasyon ng babaeng area sales manager (ASM) ng NPI sa dating presidente ng FDI 2. Ang relasyon ng dalawa ang sinasabing naging dahilan ng pagkalugi ng Forefront. Upang umano sumikat ang babae at lumaki rin ang kanyang komisyon, walang puknat na order ng mga produktong Nestle ang ginawa ng naturang FDI 2 president na humantong pa sa pagiging Distributor of the Year ng kumpanya sa dalawang magkasunod na taon - 2005 at 2006.

Ang malungkot at kagulat-gulat nito ay nang busisiin ang mga libro ng kumpanya, lumabas na ang laki ng lugi nito dahil ibinibenta pala sa presyong palugi ang mga paninda. Inireklamo nila sa NPI ang immoral conduct ng ASM dahil ang pagpasok niya sa relasyon sa pinuno ng FDI 2 ay salungat sa Code of Ethics ng Nestle. Ang masakit nito, ang reklamo nila ay hindi inaksyunan ng Nestle hanggang tuluyan nang nabangkarote ang FDI 2. Ang dahilang binigay ng NPI ay ang relasyon ng dalawa ay walang kinalaman sa kumpanya at pawang gawain lamang ng consenting adults.

Ang isa pang reklamo ng mga Pinoy partner ay ang hindi pagbabalik sa kanila ng milyun-milyong pisong dapat nilang matanggap tulad ng kanilang mga paluwal sa pag-promote ng mga produkto ng Nestle, withholding tax, pasahod sa mga extra personnel at iba pang mga bayarin. Imbes umanong tulungan, bagkus ay ini­pit pa ang Forefront at pinayuhan pang i-resign na lang nito ang pagiging distributor ng Nestle.

Binantaan pa umano sila na pati ang kontrata ng sister company nitong SEDI ay babawiin din kung hindi sila susunod sa kagustuhan ng multinational. Dahil kapit sa patalim at nalulugi nga ay napilitan silang pumayag. Para naman may masabing consuelo de bobo, binayaran umano sila ng kaunti subalit pinapirma naman sila ng isang quit claim na nagsasaad na tapos na ang pananagutan sa kanila ng NPI, na hindi naman totoo.

Dagdag pa ng grupo, minamandohan din daw sila ng NPI na ibenta ang mga produkto kahit sa presyong palugi para patayin daw ang kumpetisyon, bagay na lalo nilang ikinalugi sa dahilang hindi nila kinayang mabawi ang mga gastusin nila para sa gasolina, trucking, taxes at loan interest. Ang direktibang ‘yun ng NPI ay ang tinataguriang predatory pricing.

Dahil sa mga demandang isinampa sa kanila, mukha yatang mahuhubaran ng maskara ang tila doble-karang multinational. Balatkayo at pakitang-tao lamang ang lahat ng sinasabi nilang corporate social responsibility o pagtulong sa mga komunidad na panay ang labas sa media. Nahaharap sila ngayon sa kasong unfair trade practices, perjury, offering false testimony in evidence at predatory pricing sa Makati at Quezon City. Bantayan din sana ang kasalukuyang CEO ng NPI na si John Miller at baka makaalpas din ito tulad nina Nandkishore at Nozcek.

* * *

Basahin ang aking mga kolum sa www.duckyparedes.com/blogs. Mag-email sa duckyparedes@yahoo.com."

Malaya responds to Nestle

"That Swiss company" by Ducky Paredes, MALAYA, 13 April 2011

(Original article available online here)

"WARREN Buffett – quite simply – is the greatest investor who has ever lived. He is the primary shareholder, chairman and CEO of Berkshire Hathaway, and the skill with which he has managed billion-dollar funds is the stuff of legend. As of 2011, Buffett’s net worth was estimated at more than US$50 billion – the third richest man in the world.

What drives Buffet who lives in an ordinary house, just like any of his neighbors? For several years now, he has been trying to give away his fortune to philanthropic causes. He travels all over the world, encouraging other billionaires to do the same. Buffett knows that "you can’t take it with you."

Now why exactly am I writing about Warren Buffett? For over a year now, I have written several items calling the public’s attention to the bullying behavior of Nestlé Philippines, Inc. (NPI). Specifically, the way it treats local distributors – in other words, Filipino small and medium enterprise owners – is nothing short of shameful.

A number of these distributors have sought the intervention of the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI), only to be inexplicably told that this is not within their jurisdiction. These ill-treated entrepreneurs have since found an ally in antitrust crusader and noted lawyer Lorna Kapunan, who has brought the matter to the attention of the Senate.

In looking for where to invest, Warren Buffett advises: "Don’t just invest in a company and its ability to turn in a profit. Find out how the company behaves, and the integrity of the people running it. Would you trust them with the keys to your house? The best ship in the world will get lost at sea, or even sink, if the captain and his crew are questionable".

Tomorrow, April 14 is the 44th Annual General Meeting for Nestlé shareholders in Lausanne, Switzerland. I wonder how many of these shareholders subscribe to Warren Buffett’s way of thinking, and are willing to apply it to Nestlé? Is the mother company aware of what’s happening here in the Philippines?

Probably. For instance, last October, the Children’s Food Campaign (CFC) in Britain blasted Nestle for misusing the British government’s Change4Life (C4L) anti-obesity campaign. The whole idea behind C4L was for people to cut down on fattening food, be more active and live longer.

Nestle used the CFC logo in its marketing campaign but Sustain, the alliance behind CFC, soon found out that 24 out of the 27 products included in the Nestle promotion were categorized as high in sugar by the British Food Standards Agency guidelines. CFC finally decided that no company that promotes unhealthy and junk food should be allowed to associate with a government health campaign.

Locally, while the Nestle ad on TV and print featuring Kris Aquino and her son uses the tagline "more milk, less sugar" probably referring to a miniscule difference in sugar content compared to a competing product’s sugar content, isn’t Nestle, in reality, a major sugar pusher with its ice cream, chocolates, iced tea and practically everything that Nestle produces? Is there anything that Nestle produces that is not heavy with sugar?

Clearly, Nestle is not run by anyone close to being a Warren Buffet who cares about what his company represents.

Imagine that one of the highest-ranking officials of the Nestle Company is Nandu Nandkishore, who used to be the Chief Executive Officer of NPI until he got promoted to Nestlé’s Executive Board as Head of Nutrition. That’s a giant leap for someone who actually faces charges of perjury in Makati and Quezon City courts. How many global companies have a person facing criminal charges on their Executive Board?

In the Australian Senate, Senator Gavin Marshall of the Labor Party last March 2, 2011 talked about the unresolved case of the Nestle factory workers in Cabuyao, Laguna. The senator said that these workers have been on strike for over ten years and that over 500 workers have been dismissed for simply trying to exercise their right to have retirement benefits included in their collective bargaining agreement (CBC).

According to Senator Marshall, Nestle has also defied a decision by the Supreme Court to allow a decent retirement plan to be included in the CBA for the factory workers and that Nestle also refuses to reinstate the striking workers and negotiated in good faith on the CBA.

Finally, if you talk about integrity, how can Nestlé in Switzerland tolerate the predatory pricing and vertical price restraint operations of Nestlé Philippines, when these are patently against the laws set forth even in Switzerland itself by the Swiss Competition Council?

*** "

EQ Nestle poll

"NESTLE CENTENNIAL In The Philippines: Is It Worth Celebrating?"
by The EQualizer Post, 10 April 2011
(Original and full article here).

Nestle is a trade and distributor bully in the Philippines.						33.45%
Milk powders produced in China by Nestlé contained traces of melamine.						17.75%
Nestle attracts global criticism for its infant-formula marketing policies, especially those conducted in developing countries.						11.6%
Nestle has been criticized for outsourcing and price-fixing.						9.56%
The world's leading nutrition, health and wellness company.						9.22%
Manufacturer of quality baby food, coffee, dairy products, breakfast cereals, confectionery, bottled water, ice cream, pet foods, more...						7.85%
Members of Nestlé Management at all levels are professional.						5.8%
Nestlé is conscious of its social responsibility, which is inherent in its long-term orientation.						4.78%

Source: The EQualizer Post

Manila Standard response to Nestle Philippines' statement

From "To The Point" column by Emil Jurado, MANILA STANDARD TODAY, 12 April 2011
(Full column available online here)

"***

Last month, I had a nice “exchange” with Ms. Edith de Leon, head of corporate affairs of Nestle Philippines Inc. over a column I wrote about predatory pricing charges leveled against the food and beverage giant. I mentioned some of the reasons why Nestle is now regarded as the poster boy of corporate bullying in the Philippines. Ms. De Leon reacted by writing an official letter to this paper denying everything.

Without going through the exact nuances of the issue again (I wrote a detailed rejoinder to her reply in my column last March 23) I have to say that the way Nestle has replied to the issue of predatory pricing, clearly a violation of the law, has left me somewhat bewildered.

For the sake of brevity and uniformity, Nestle’s letter to the Manila Standard Today was practically the same one it sent to other newspapers that wrote about the pending cases. That’s perfectly understandable until you consider that the company’s official reply was wrought with inaccuracies and misleading statements. I tackled these one by one in my March 23 column, and Nestle has been silent since.

Silent, that is, until a reliable source called me about the articles I had written. Obviously, he spoke on the condition of anonymity, and emphasized that no one from Nestle (apart from Ms. De Leon) was authorized to comment on the issue.

What he told me, however, made my senior citizen skin crawl. My gulay, talk about a snake pit of corporate intrigue and conspiracy allegedly happening at Nestle!

***

It seems that NPI is fully aware that it is standing on weak ground on the pricing and ethics controversies filed against it. This is compounded by the fact that several of its bankrupt distributors have gone to the Department of Trade and Industry to file their complaints. Moreover, a number of the company’s top executives – John Miller, Shahab Bachani and D. Nandkishore - are facing perjury charges in both Quezon City and Makati courts.

Nestle has reportedly realized that the facts are simply too glaring to be argued away or reasonably disputed. In other words, the company has dug itself a hole that it can’t seem to climb out of. There’s also jurisprudence working against Nestle since the Supreme Court ruled against the company five years ago (Nestle Philippines Inc. vs. FY Sons Inc., G. R. No. 150780), for exactly the same things it is now being accused of.

The problem lies in the company’s annual stockholders meeting this coming April 14. If someone should bring up the situation in the Philippines, how would that be addressed? And here’s the jaw-dropping fact: Nandkishore—the very same person facing perjury charges in local courts—now sits on Nestle’s Executive Board occupying a very sensitive position as head of Nutrition.

Allegedly, Nestle’s solution is not to find a way out of the mess. What it is doing now is finding a best possible scapegoat, and Nandkishore has purportedly been singled out. Santa Banana, it seems that his own company is about to throw poor Nandu under the bus!

My source claims that Nandkishore fits the bill perfectly, since the monumental chaos in the Philippines happened under his watch (he used to be the CEO of NPI until he got promoted). Moreover, there are many executives who supposedly questioned his being named to such a senior post within the Executive Committee. Surely, Nandu’s fall from grace only means good things for their job prospects.

Watch your back, Nandu, or you may find yourself crying over spilled milk."

Anti-trust in Business Agenda DZAR

Atty. Lorna Kapunan was the guest speaker in the "Business Agenda" DZAR, Sonshine Radio, yesterday 11 April 2011, where she spoke at length about anti-trust initiatives by the Senate and other issues surrounding anti-trust violations in the country today.

Atty. Kapunan discussed the lack of a comprehensive anti-trust policy in the country, and how proposed Senate bills by Senators Sergio Osmena III, Manny Villar, and Juan Ponce Enrile hope to address this issue. The lawyer cited examples of how anti-trust violations are being committed by companies, particularly multinationals to the detriment of Filipino consumers and small-to-business enterprises.

Atty. Kapunan emphasized the need for greater legislative will to enforce the proposed anti-trust policy and is calling out for greater protection of the Filipino businessman.

"Business Agenda" is hosted by Tony Cuevas and airs daily at 9:00 am.

Nestle cheers and jeers

"Cheers and Jeers", People's Journal, 11 April 2011
(Original article available online here).

"Nestle Philippines, Inc. (NPI) must still be in a celebratory mood, having recently marked a century of existence among Filipinos, a great number of whom have patronized its products for much of their lifetime.

In recent weeks, and probably to highlight this very special milestone in its corporate life, NPI has engaged itself in a frenzy of corporate social responsibility projects and business related undertakings. These included mobilizing 525 of its people to conduct what it claims to be the largest carpentry lesson ever to be held anywhere in the world, one that would outshine the existing Guinness World Record of 250 people in a similar exercise.

The company even commissioned nine directors to produce short films that would “celebrate” its 100 years of operation in the Philippines.

But possibly its more significant exercise in this regard is its commitment to work with the Department of Agriculture, the Land Bank of the Philippines and Banco de Oro, to infuse more pep in the country’s coffee industry. This is supposed to pour some P3 billion into the venture, a major portion of which will reportedly be used to provide loans to coffee farmers in the country.

For this, we say “Cheers!” Let’s drink to that, and not with any alcoholic concoction, but with Nescafe, perhaps?

There’s something ironic in all these, however, because for some time now, NPI appears to have assumed the role of an oppressor, a kontrabida, as one is called in the local cinematic milieu. And that’s because the company has allegedly been enforcing its version of predatory pricing upon its Filipino distributors, which constitute anti-trust and unfair trade practice.

NPI stands accused of compelling its distributors, under pain of cancelation of distributorship contracts, to abide by its inflexible prices. It is said however, that these prices do not consider the distributors’ cost of delivering Nestle products to wholesaler and other retail outlets; the interest charges for financing the purchase of these products, and the municipal taxes that its distributors have to shoulder. This resulted in bankruptcy for one of them, and huge losses for another.

Two distributors of NPI have filed charges to this effect with government regulatory agencies. The distributors have also filed criminal complaints of perjury against top officials of Nestle. We are informed that two of these officials, former Chairman and CEO Doreswamy Nandkishore and former Chief Finance Officer Peter Noszek, have quietly slipped out of the country and are now effectively out of reach of our judicial system. The former is reportedly with the Nestle head office in Switzerland while the latter is said to have been reassigned to the US.

Incidentally, its partner in the coffee venture, Banco de Oro, has also taken NPI to court for having “knowingly made a false representation with intent to mislead the bank” into renewing the loans of one of its distributors. The false information given by NPI led to millions of losses for the bank.

What then, do we say to all these but ...”Jeers!”

Anti-trust bills gain momentum

Excerpt from ANGEL THOUGHTS column by DeeDee M. Siytangco, Manila Bulletin, 11 April 2011.
(Original and full article hit the stands on 10 April 2011, and is available online here).

"Given this, in light of recent headlines, anti-trust supporters have been handed the perfect opportunity to promote their cause. As a concept, anti-trust has been discussed and debated in the Philippines for years, going back to the Marcos era when monopolies were rampant.

In 2008, Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile already proposed Senate Bill 123, otherwise known as the anti-trust act, but to date, nothing concrete has come out of it. We don’t have an anti-trust law that will prevent “pacman-type tycoons” gobbling up business in all sectors – telecoms, infrastructure, medical centers, media, among others. In Asia, we are only one of two countries without this law!

It’s only now that we are beginning to realize how this anti-trust thing can actually affect our livelihoods, job securities, income opportunities, and even our ability to make text messages and calls on our cellphones free of charge!

Lately, a number of giant corporations have been under the anti-trust spotlight, and the discussions have finally been brought to a level that the man-on-the-street can relate to."

Nestle Antitrust cases - Soprole

Chile Soprole, Nestle To Step Away From Planned Joint Venture

First Published Tuesday, 5 April 2011 05:41 pm - © 2011 Dow Jones

Available online in Automated Trader here.

ANTIAGO -(Dow Jones)- Following opposition from Chile's antitrust office, Swiss food and beverage giant Nestle SA (NESN.VX, NSRGY) and local dairy products maker Soprole SA will step away from their planned joint venture, the companies said Tuesday.

The Chilean antitrust office, known locally as the FNE, said in March that it opposed the planned joint venture, which would have included the manufacture, retail and distribution of various dairy products under the DPA Chile moniker.

"The conditions needed to proceed with the merger process are missing," the companies said in a joint statement, adding that they won't be pursuing the matter further with Chilean authorities.

Chile's antitrust court was set to rule on the venture later this year.

Last month, the FNE rejected the joint venture in spite of measures established by the companies to offset any negative market effects.

The FNE said the operation will restrict free competition among dairy producers and increase consumer prices. Additionally, the FNE found the proposed mitigation measures inefficient and difficult to implement.

Nestle and Soprole announced the venture in November.

Fonterra Dairy Co-operative Group Ltd. has a 99.8% stake in Soprole, Chile's leading consumer dairy business, with around one-third of the total market.

-By Anthony Esposito, Dow Jones Newswires; 56-2-715-8929;anthony.esposito@dowjones.com

Elsewhere in the globe - Nestle anti-trust cases - Soprole

Chile's Antitrust Office Opposes Nestle, Soprole Joint Venture

First Published Wednesday, 9 March 2011 01:07 pm - © 2011 Dow Jones

Article available online in Automated Trader here.

ANTIAGO -(Dow Jones)- Following opposition from Chile's antitrust office, Swiss food and beverage giant Nestle SA (NESN.VX, NSRGY) and local dairy products maker Soprole SA will step away from their planned joint venture, the companies said Tuesday.

The Chilean antitrust office, known locally as the FNE, said in March that it opposed the planned joint venture, which would have included the manufacture, retail and distribution of various dairy products under the DPA Chile moniker.

"The conditions needed to proceed with the merger process are missing," the companies said in a joint statement, adding that they won't be pursuing the matter further with Chilean authorities.

Chile's antitrust court was set to rule on the venture later this year.

Last month, the FNE rejected the joint venture in spite of measures established by the companies to offset any negative market effects.

The FNE said the operation will restrict free competition among dairy producers and increase consumer prices. Additionally, the FNE found the proposed mitigation measures inefficient and difficult to implement.

Nestle and Soprole announced the venture in November.

Fonterra Dairy Co-operative Group Ltd. has a 99.8% stake in Soprole, Chile's leading consumer dairy business, with around one-third of the total market.

-By Anthony Esposito, Dow Jones Newswires; 56-2-715-8929;anthony.esposito@dowjones.com

Elsewhere in the globe - Nestle anti-trust cases - Garoto

Nestle Approaches Brazil to Settle Garoto Antitrust Court Case

by Arnold Galvao - Oct. 5, 2010

Available online in Bloomberg here.

Nestle SA approached the Brazilian government with a proposal to sell assets and settle a six-year court dispute related to its purchase of Chocolates Garoto SA, which was blocked by antitrust regulators, according to two government officials.

The first meeting took place on Sept. 16 at the attorney general’s office, according to Antonio Henrique Pinheiro Silveira and Mariana Tavares, secretaries of the antitrust arms of the Finance Ministry and Justice Ministry, respectively. Silveira and Tavares were present, along with lawyers for Nestle Brasil Ltda. and the attorney general, Luis Inacio Lucena Adams.

“The discussions are very preliminary,” Tavares said in a Sept. 24 telephone interview from Brasilia. Silveira spoke about the matter in a Sept. 23 interview, also in the capital.

Nestle’s proposed purchase of Garoto in 2002 was the first time Brazil’s antitrust regulator, known as Cade, completely rejected an acquisition. Representatives from the regulator weren’t invited to the meeting, according to the officials. Cade President Arthur Badin said by e-mail he had no knowledge of the talks.

The antitrust ruling can’t be reversed out of court without Cade’s approval, Badin said. Any new proposal from Nestle will have to be processed by Cade’s attorney and judged by the agency’s six-strong plenary, he added.

Robin Tickle, a spokesman for Nestle in Vevey, Switzerland, said the company declined to comment on the matter.

After Cade’s decision in 2004, Nestle offered to sell a line of chocolate coatings that it said corresponded to 46 percent of domestic demand for the product. The company also offered to sell chocolate brands. The proposal was rejected by Cade, and Nestle decided to take the matter to court.

Silveira said a Nestle proposal to sell some brands may not be sufficient. He said all competition conditions in the industry must be evaluated, including distribution.

-- With assistance from Clementine Fletcher in London. Editors: Robin Stringer, Laura Price.

To contact the reporter on this story: Arnaldo Galvao in Brasilia at agalvao1@bloomberg.net

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Francisco Marcelino mdeoliveira@bloomberg.net