Showing posts with label Nestle Vevey. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Nestle Vevey. Show all posts

Monday, December 12, 2011

ANTI-TRUST CASE AGAINST NESTLE PHILIPPINES

"Impeaching Corona Not Far Behind"
by Emil Jurado 
09 December 2011, To The Point, MANILA STANDARD
(Original article here).

"***
Some businessmen friends recently asked me about the statute of the much ballyhooed proposal for an Anti-Trust Law that would finally give teeth to Article 186 of the Revised Penal Code. This refers to prohibition from entering into or being a party to any contract or agreement, or from taking part in any conspiracy or combination in restraint of trade or commerce for the purpose of preventing by artificial means, free competition.

As far as I can recall, the move to have such a law introduced received a boost last August when five top officers of the giant multinational Nestle Philippines Inc. were indicted for violation of Article 186 of the Revised Penal Code. The charges were an offshoot of complaints against Nestle by two of its distributors, Service Edge Distributors Inc. and FDI Forefront 2 Trading Corporation.

The Filipino firms alleged that Nestle engaged in predatory pricing, imposition of inflexible price bulletins that resulted in luge losses to the distributors, unilateral withdrawal of promised marketing support, violation of the terms and eventual termination of the distribution agreement, perjury and offering false testimony in evidence.

I suppose that hearings of the charges against Nestle officials have been scheduled at the Quezon City Regional Trial Court. Resolution of this matter will have an important bearing on the perceived overhearing conduct of multinational firms towards not only their competitors, but even to their own distributors, who are in fact their business partners. Interestingly enough, during the recently concluded Philippine Advertising Congress in Camarines Sur, Nestle Philippines was adjudged Employer of the Year. Well, the company certainly will not win an award of any kind from its distributors who feel they have been wronged.

***

Friday, November 4, 2011

NESTLÉ PHILIPPINES, Inc. officials have been accused of fixing wholesale prices.


Nestlé officials accused of price fixing

by N.R. Melican
BusinessWorld Online, 31 October 2011
(Original article availble online here).




A CITY prosecutor’s office has found probable cause to charge Nestlé Philippines, Inc. officials with price fixing after distributors complained that the local arm of the food giant required their products to be sold for a dictated cost.


As such, the case has been filed at the Quezon City Regional Trial Court and raffled to Branch 97 at present.

In a resolution issued Aug. 15, 2011, Quezon City First Assistant City Prosecutor Meynardo M. Bautista Jr. ruled there was weight behind complaints against six officials -- former Nestlé Philippines chairman and chief executive officer (CEO) Doreswamy Nandkishore, incumbent chairman and CEO John Martin Miller, Sales Director Shahab Bachani, Chief Finance Officer Peter Noszek, and sales officials Jose Ceballos and Maria Elisa Lupena -- accused of imposing predatory prices for goods, a violation of Article 186 of the Revised Penal Code.

Nestlé Philippines could not be immediately reached for comment.

FDI Forefront II Trading Corp. and its parent firm Service Edge Distributors Inc. (SEDI) took issue with the price bulletins Nestlé Philippines issues to middlemen dictating the cost at which Nestlé products should be sold to retailers. Distributors are told to follow the selling prices in the bulletins or face termination of the distributorship agreement.

The two firms -- which were formerly assigned to distribute Nestlé products in northwest Quezon City, Caloocan, Malabon, Navotas and Valenzuela -- claim that the price bulletins do not take into account several factors: the cost of financing for the goods, municipal business taxes, cost of bad debts for bad or poorly paying retailers, cost of discounts given to retailers and cost of bad goods.

Nestlé Philippines terminated its distributorship agreement with FDI in late 2007 and that with SEDI in September 2011.

The respondents countered, however, that the two distributors’ claims are baseless, saying that price fixing only occurs when multiple firms agree to set prices to restrain trade.

The city prosecutor’s office decided, however, that the case was worth pursuing.

“The act of Nestlé in fixing the resale price maintenance for its products… is illegal, a per se violation of paragraph 1 of Artice 186, Revised Penal Code, which means that price fixing is automatically illegal and there will be no valid justification to legitimate price fixing agreement,” the resolution read.

“Even if the agreement of Nestlé and the complainants is to be analyzed under the rule of reason, the act is also unlawful because of its harmful anticompetitive effects against consumers and complainants, with no competitive economic benefits,” the resolution read further.

“[This is] harmful to the consumers because Nestlé exercised monopoly power of price fixing the resale of its goods which means that consumers cannot buy the product at a lower price than that fixed by Nestlé,” it stated.

The Nestlé officials could be “criminally liable,” the resolution stated. -- N.R. Melican

Sunday, September 18, 2011

"A Climate of Uncertainty"
by Emil Jurado
MANILA STANDARD, To The Point, 06 September 2011
(Original article available here)

"***

Calls for the passage of an effective and all-embracing anti-trust law in the country appear to have received renewed interest in the wake of a resolution handed down by the Office of the Quezon City Prosecutor in a case filed against multi-national Nestle Philippines Inc.

In an August 15 resolution, City Prosecutor Donald Lee approved the recommendation of First Assistant City Prosecutor Meynardo Bautista Jr. that charges be filed in court against high officials and executives of NPI for violation of Article 186 of the Revised Penal Code.

This particular provision contains a prohibition against entering into, or being a party to, any contract or agreement, or from taking part in any conspiracy or combination in restraint of trade or commerce, for the purpose of preventing by artificial means, free competition.

Those recommended for indictment are NPI chairman and CEO John Martin Miller, Chief Finance Office Peter Oszek, Business Executive Manager Shahab Bacani, Regional Sales Manager Jose Ceballos and Area Sales Manager Elisa Lupena.

***

The case stemmed from complaints filed against Nestle by service Edge Distributors Inc. and FDU Forefront II Trading Corp. (FDI 2), two Filipino firms serving as distributors of Nestle products in Metro Manila.

The allegations against Nestle include predatory pricing, violation of the terms of distribution agreement between Nestle and the two distributors, unjust termination of the said agreement, imposition of inflexible price bulletins that resulted in huge losses to the distributors, unilateral withdrawal of promised marketing support, perjury and offering false testimony in evidence.

Investigations established the existence of a vertical agreement between Nestle and its distributors, wherein the former fixes the resale price of the products. The agreement compels the distributors to sell the goods only at the price dictated by Nestle, otherwise, their distributorship contract will be revoked.

The resolution also said that the respondents, who were then officials of Nestle Philippines, Inc., knowingly committed the crime or permitted or failed to prevent the commission of the said crime. Hence, they are criminally liable.

Nestle was also accused of fixing the resale price of its products and imposing upon its distributors that these prices be maintained. This is in violation of Article 18 of the Revised Penal Code, which says that price fixing is automatically illegal and there will be no valid justification to legitimate price-fixing agreement.

If I may read between the lines, I would say that the resolution represents a triumph not only of the two Filipino distributors, but also of the common Filipino consumer. This case sends a strong message to other multinationals that their abusive practices will not be tolerated. Significantly, it also encourages similarly situated Filipino distributors and marketing outfits that they can rely on the government to uphold and to protect their rights."

NESTLE PHILIPPINES: MONSTER MNC

"MONSTER MNC IS 100"
by Ducky Paredes
MALAYA, Business Insight, 05 September 2011
(Original article available here)

"PEOPLE and multinational corporations both have birthdays but with a big difference. Humans tend to become kinder as they approach the end of their time on earth; multinationals get to be more powerful and, as their reach expands, more dominant, exploitative and even criminally abusive. Not all, of course; as with humans, there are good and bad multinationals.

One multinational celebrated its hundredth year recently by bullying and throwing its weight around to the detriment, not just of its competitors, but also even of its own business partners.

At last, the multinational is getting its comeuppance. For starters, the force of the law, imperfect as it is in this country, seems to be working against the multinational. A judge is looking them over and entertaining complaints filed by Pinoys who were abused by the MNC and forced into a state of near-bankruptcy.

There is even more trouble due the MNC in the form of bills pending in the Senate and the House of Representatives intended to improve current laws against monopolistic behavior, predatory pricing and restraint of trade, sponsored by Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile, Senator Sergio Osmeña and Representative Rufus Rodriguez. .

The giant multinational, which is Nestle Philippines, Inc. (NPI), just turned 100 recently. Nestle, as with most other MNCs, celebrated its longevity by launching corporate social responsibility (CSR) projects backed up by lavish advertisements in print, radio, television and cinema showing how the multinational has been a good corporate citizen. In the case of Nestle in the Philippines, one wonders whether this the true picture of the company.

NPI’s festivities were somewhat rained on when the Office of the City Prosecutor of Quezon City issued a resolution on August 15 finding sufficient evidence to hold NPI for trial for violation of Article 186 of the Revised Penal Code.

This article penalizes any person "who shall enter into any contract or agreement or shall take part in any conspiracy or combination in the form of a trust or otherwise, which results in restraint of trade or commerce and prevents, by artificial means, free competition in the market."

The resolution found merit in the complaint filed by Nestle distributors FDI Forefront II Trading Corporation and Service Edge Distributors, Inc. that their agreements with Nestle were anti-competitive since they were obligated to sell Nestle products at the price fixed by NPI, regardless of the fact that the set price provided too thin a margin for the distributors to make a profit. Failure by the distributors to sell under these terms would result in the unilateral termination of their agreement with NPI. Their complaint pointed to a situation when NPI forced them to sell to a set of customers at a loss because of the fixed price set by NPI.

According to the QC Prosecutor’s resolution, "the act of Nestle in fixing the resale price maintenance for its products, imposing it on complainant is illegal, a per se violation of paragraph 1 of Article 186, Revised Penal Code which means that price fixing is automatically illegal and there will be no valid justification to legitimate price fixing agreement."

The resolution further stated that an analysis of the agreement shows that the act is also unlawful "because of its harmful anti-competitive effects against consumers and complainants, with no competitive economic benefits. Harmful to the consumers because Nestle exercised monopoly power of price fixing, the resale of its goods which means that consumers cannot buy the product at a lower price than that fixed by Nestle."

High ranking NPI executives, former Chief Executive Officer Doreswamy Nandkishore, current CEO John Martin Miller, Shahab Bahcani and Peter Noszek were impleaded for conspiring to commit anti-competitive acts as they were found to have knowingly committed the crime or to have permitted or failed to prevent the commission of the crime, and will stand trial before a Regional Trial Court of Quezon City.

The resolution is a welcome development, not only to the complainants, but to those who support the passage of an Anti-Trust Law, coming as it does on the heels of President Noynoy Aquino’s signing of Executive Order No. 45 giving full jurisdiction to the Department of Justice over matters related to competition and fair trade practices.

Lawyer Lorna P. Kapunan recalled the president’s assurance that the matter of monopolies and corporate bullying tactics was one of the first issues that he would look into. "His signing that E.O. shows that he is taking active steps to back up his promise," Kapunan said.

Nestle insiders say that the top honchos in the company’s main office in Switzerland are closely monitoring the woes that the local hundred-year-old outfit is experiencing. The rift between NPI and its distributors was reportedly on the agenda when the mother company’s chief executive Paul Burke and executive vice president Frits Van Dijk came all the way from Switzerland to meet with NPI officials (and also incidentally, to participate in the company’s centennial celebration).

Will the mother company in Switzerland do anything to convert the image of the centenarian company into a more grandfatherly one in its dealings with its business partners or will Nestle continue to exhibit the worst traits of a MNC monster?"

Wednesday, June 29, 2011

Nestle execs in Manila


"Spiced, not iced tea?"

by Willie Baun
Published 28 June 2011 in STREETLIGHTS, People's Journal
(Original article available online here)

"ALRIGHT, intractable six-cup Nescafe Joe warns, just as long as you don’t dunk bad news in my coffee mug; I say consider the caveat seconded.

With the hot and humid spell of summer blown off by the typhoon season, expect a drought of sorts in the market for soft drinks, juices, halo-halo and, oh yeah, iced tea. 

However, Nestle Philippines, Inc. executives John Miller, Shahab Bachani, and Nandu Nandkishore may well pick up the downer, as it were, while having to drink gallons of iced Nestea to cool off. 

The NPI triumvirate company and personal legal problems that, for sure, somehow dampened the recent celebration of the global Swiss firm’s 100 years in the Philippines. 

Perjury charges have been filed against them in the Makati and Quezon regional trial courts. Complainant in the case is no smalltime outfit that NPI can ignore, let alone mess with.

The plaintiff is Banco de Oro, which just happens to be owned by Forbes Magazine’s top Filipino billionaire – mall magnate Henry Sy, owner of the ubiquitous SM malls.

BdO’s issue with NPI is its alleged failure to divulge prior knowledge of the financial woes of an NPI-favored distributor, who kept getting bank loans on the strength of the endorsements by aforementioned NPI execs. 

Some NPI distributors have also complained to the Department of Trade and Industry and taken legal action against the firm’s bully tactics – alleged instances of predatory pricing that sacrificed their profitability to the goal of booting rival brands out of contention. 

Shouldn’t pouring when it rains be bad enough for NPI? I’m inclined to agree if only for the Nescafe aroma that delights me as I write. But then again there’s simply more! 

This refers to the long-festering labor dispute in the NPI plant in Cabuyao, Laguna where more than 600 employees had gone on strike nine years ago to compel management to the bargaining table and discuss wages and benefits. 

The company purportedly simply turned a deaf ear to the worker’s plaints, allegedly to this date, has all but disregarded the Supreme Court’s decision in 2006, ordering NPI to reinstate the strikers and initiate formal negotiations. 

In the meantime, some of the strikers have reportedly been killed mysteriously, notably union leader Melito Roxas and his successor Diosdado Fortuna. 

Perhaps Mssrs. Miller, Bachani, and Nandkishore would care to share their iced tea with those who feel they’ve been mistreated by their company for the longest time. Or should it be spiced tea to ensure the complainants just grin and bear it?"

Thursday, May 26, 2011

Wednesday, April 13, 2011

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?

*** "

Friday, April 8, 2011

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

Monday, March 14, 2011

The most controversial company in the Philippines?

"NESTLE PHILIPPINES: The Most Controversial Company In The Philippines?"
Originally published in the EQ Post on 11 March 2011 here.


"John Miller, Nestle Philippines CEO, is a spin doctor. He spins in unusual directions. He tells his employees in Nestle Philippines that it's in their best interest to communicate honestly. He persuades them to listen more, to tell the truth, to take responsibility for their actions, and to treat customers with respect.

But John Miller does not practice what he preaches.
He does not tell Nestle Vevey the awful truths that he covers up.

1)TRADE BULLY OF THE PHILIPPINES

'THIS is a re-telling of a fairy tale that did not end happily ever after. You read about it in this column before. It is about the biggest food multinational (MNC) in the world and one of its Filipino distributors.
It began thus: Once a upon a time this MNC known for producing milk, cereals, coffee and a Chocó drink that supposedly energized young people, appointed FDI Forefront I1 Trading Corp. (FD12) and Service Edge Distribution (SEDI) as two of its many distributors.
FDI2 and SED1 had common minority shareholders.
Since MNC was one of the most desired companies because its products sold like the proverbial hot cakes, FD12 and SEDI were ecstatic.
They were assured of adequate advertising and promotions support, in-house financing to acquire the goods they would resell to retailers like groceries and supermarkets, and products whose cute ads made them fly off the shelves. In return, while boosting the MNC’s sales, they would make for themselves a handsome profit. Clearly, it seemed to them, to be a win-win situation.
FD12 won MNC’s Distributor of the Year in 2005 and 2006 and the MNC’s Area Sales Manager (ASM) assigned to coordinate with FD12 won company awards and corresponding incentives and bonuses.
But along the way, the MNC prince turned into a beast. MNC increased the sales targets or quotas of goods that FD12 and SEDI had to sell even as MNC reduced its marketing and promotional support. Then it forced these two outfits to service additional retailers that had established reputations of being poor payers or had long outstanding receivables. Then sometime in 2006, MNC transferred distributors’ financing to local banks that imposed higher interests rates and a shorter 30-day maturity period.
Yet despite all these limitations, FD12 soldiered on and even won the two awards from MNC. But despite the accolades, the cash flow was miserable and their bottom line was shrinking.
There was a reason for this. Eventually, an independent audit disclosed collusion between the MNC’s Area Sales Manager and the FD12 operations manager. FDI2 was giving retailers discounts way above what FDI2 allowed, in effect practically giving the goods away. Why? Apparently, they were carrying on an illicit affair since the FD12 manager was married.
When FD12 brought this loss – and the reasons behind it – to MNC’s attention, citing conflict of interest, the Pinoy distributor was told that the company considered the affair as one between two consenting adults. This is despite the fact its Corporate Code of Ethics requires its management and employees to “avoid even the appearance of impropriety in its business relationships on behalf of the company.” And, what about the Pinoy’s losses?
To add insult to injury, the MNC illegally and, without warning, terminated its distributorship four days before Christmas of 2007 resulting in 100 employees being laid off.
Not content with this bullying, when FD12 went back to get outstanding claims worth P11 million, it was coerced into signing a Release and Quit Claim on future legitimate claims based on a proposed joint audit by the MNC and FD12 of the latter’s financial records. FD12 signed under duress, believing the promise of the MNC lawyer that the company would honor good-faith claims made against it. Of course, the MNC lawyer later denied making such a ridiculous promise.
I wrote about this evil MNC in April and May this year. Under the glare of publicity, MNC initiated talks with FD12 to settle their differences, but, of course, when one is dealing with legendary Swiss misers, nothing came of the talks.
In fact, it gets worse for the MNC’s distributors. Apparently, five of MNC’s six distributors in Central Luzon were also victimized by one of the company’s employees, a Regional Sales Manager who ordered the distributors to give preferential discounts of 10 to 12% to a particular customer who, in turn, sold the discounted goods to Metro Manila (MM) wholesalers at 8 to 10% off. Manila distributors like SEDI and FD12 could not compete with these in-house cut-throat competitors even as they were being bullied to “hit target at all costs.” Everyone – in central Luzon and in Metro Manilas ended up losing more money, even as MNC and its managers were hitting their targets and more.
Things eventually came to a head when the checks that the five CL distributors received from the Metro Manila customer to whom they were giving the preferential discount bounced. The bad checks turned out to be from the joint account of the MNC’s Regional Sales manager who, it turned out to be was the wife of the preferred customer!
When the conspiracy surfaced, the manager’s husband got cash advances from the MM wholesalers, one of which forked out P22M for goods he never got. Apparently this MNC manager became one because she was constantly hitting or exceeding her sales targets and under her watch, Central Luzon won Best Area Award in 2007 and 2008.
What did MNC have to say about this financial brouhaha? Again, they dismissed it as the product of a rogue individual, and will only pay for the legal fees of the distributors when they sue the manager who has absconded with the cash and whose whereabouts are now unknown.
However, according to independent lawyers, the MNC manager by her verbal and written orders (some on MNC official letterhead) bound the company through the doctrine of Apparent Authority. The lawyer may be right but trying to get what is due you from the miserly Swiss may be harder than getting blood from a stone.
My advise to the distributors of this MNC: Get together and sue. This MNC should be booted out of this country. This MNC is the moral equivalent of the Ampatuans or the A(H1N1) that victimizes – even kills off — just about anyone that has dealings with it.' By Ducky Paredes

2) COVER-UP

With the aid of their large advertising budgets, Nestle Philippines media team work on mainstream media to recycle press releases and to suppress news that might adversely affect Nestle.
EXAMPLE:The news blackout on Milo Marathon tragedy.
Is it true that a man collapsed and died of heat stroke two days after in the recent 34th Milo Marathon eliminations last July 4 and Nestle is suppressing the news in mainstream media??? EQualizer Post :July 16

They issued a belated apology on the July 4 incident only after the EQ Post expose.
Nestle posted this letter of condolence only at 4:12 pm, July 16 only in Facebook:



There has been no report on this tragedy in mainstream media!"

Full article with images available here.