Editorial of People's Journal. It's obvious that they are talking about our fave bad MNC, Nestle.

The buck stops here

Wednesday, 25 August 2010 18:55

There are numerous instances when erring employees make appalling decisions that put the reputation of the entire company in jeopardy. Even worse, there are instances when embezzlement or fraud is committed while serving in an official capacity. During times like these, it would be so easy for a company to put the entire blame on the erring employee. But those who value “relationships more than contracts” — as the world’s greatest investor, Warren Buffet, put it — take command responsibility and find ways to rectify the situation. Often, this comes at their own expense, but the welfare of their customers and business partners comes first. There is actually a legal principle which applies to situations such as these, namely the rule of “apparent authority.” Apparent authority states that a principal is responsible for the acts of an agent where the principal, by his words or conduct, suggests to a third person that the agent may act on the principal’s behalf, and where the third person believes in the authority of the agent (for instance, by virtue of a high-ranking position, long employment history, and representations such as official calling cards, letterheads, etc.) On the other hand, there are other firms that refuse to acknowledge this doctrine, and continue to avoid accountability at all costs. One such corporation, a giant multinational engaged in food and beverage products, has gained notoriety in the business community. It finally reached a point wherein the country’s largest bank eventually sued the MNC for its passive involvement in a billion-peso scam. Unlike other cases where victims were not financially crippled by acts of fraud, the scheme perpetrated by the multinational’s regional sales manager left several of their Central Luzon distributors entirely bankrupt. Indeed, entire families found themselves mired in insurmountable debt. Conceitedly, the company has absolved itself of all blame, notwithstanding the fact that management was fully aware of the problem yet still urged banks to lend money to the Central Luzon distributors (thus the lawsuit). More disturbingly, a very similar case occurred not too long ago, wherein another one of their sales managers ran away with approximately P100 million and left the distributor holding the bag. Let us recall that one of the cornerstones of President Aquino’s economic agenda is to boost the growth of small and medium enterprises and promote entrepreneurship. Accordingly, companies need to be reminded that the buck does not always stop before it reaches them.

Bad MNC strikes again! by Ducky Paredes

HOW do you protect yourself from fraud and devious financial schemes if, in spite of all the sworn documents they signed, the presumably respectable parties to whom you had extended a series of loans, deliberately deceive you?

This is a lesson in doing business with entities larger than yourself or your company. What you will read about is a clear case of duplicity, prevarication and unethical conduct by an MNC and its regional sales manager.

The complainant is a leading Philippine bank that extended hundreds of millions in various loans and credit facilities to a local firm, Interbrand Logistics and Distribution, Inc., a top distributor of the MNC. The respondents include the MNC that produces and markets a wide range of food and beverage products. It operates on a global scale, with 2009 sales running above $100 billion.

The bank granted the loans after satisfying itself about the borrower’s credit worthiness and the viability of its business as exclusive distributor of the MNC’s products in Quezon City, Tarlac and Bulacan. The bank checked with the MNC and was advised that indeed, the borrower was "one of its top distributors in the country; that it meets its sales targets; and that its payment record is satisfactory."

Due to this favorable endorsement, the bank granted Interbrand in May 2006 credit facilities of P80 million and a Bills Purchase Line of P10 million. Interbrand availed of this facility in various amounts starting July 2006. It signed a Facility Agreement and issued promissory notes to the bank, to be redeemed upon maturity. It backed up its promise to pay by executing, in favor of the bank, a chattel mortgage over its merchandise inventories.

To further secure the prompt observance of the terms of the agreement, the President/Chief Executive Officer and a director of Interbrand also executed a Continuing Suretyship to answer for the loans.

The credit facility was renewed from year to year, after the bank had reviewed and reassessed the performance of the borrower. As part of due diligence, and prior to renewal, the bank always checked with the MNC about the financial status of Interbrand, and each time, the MNC would give a favorable endorsement.

The bank also conducted random checks with the MNC in between renewals to monitor the borrower’s creditworthiness and its status as distributor. One such random inquiry was made in June 2009. In its complaint, the bank claims that in reply, the MNC’s Head of Distribution Management told the bank that Interbrand remained as its No. 1 distributor in the Philippines. Even when MNC knew that this was no longer the case.

Another trade check was made on the borrower in September 2009 when its credit facility again came up for renewal. Reportedly, the MNC once more gave the usual positive assessment.

These favorable endorsements led the bank to renew Interbrand’s credit facility, allowing the latter to secure a series of 19 loans totaling P123.25 million in the second half of 2009. On January 13 of this year, Interbrand availed of still another loan, amounting to P6 million, backing this up with another promissory note.

But just two days after getting this latest loan, Interbrand defaulted on a P5.3 million borrowing that was due on January 15, 2009. Reminders and demands for payments were given to the borrower but it failed to settle its accountabilities.

In the course of its investigation, the bank discovered what appears to be a horror story, with both Interbrand and the bank ending up terribly scarred – financially and otherwise.

It turns out that the MNC, through its Regional Sales Manager (ASM), had been pulling out inventory from Interbrand’s warehouse. These were then delivered to some of the MNC’s key accounts that were urgently asking for additional product deliveries. In exchange, the ASM would issue credit memos that Interbrand could use, in lieu of cash, to purchase MNC products.

On various dates in May 2009, the multinational company, through its ASM, pulled out some P114 million worth of products from Interbrand’s warehouse. However, the ASM only issued P58 million worth of credit memos. The balance of P56 million was left unsecured.

When Interbrand tried to use the P58 million in credit memos to pay for the purchase of MNC products, the MNC refused to honor these, claiming that the credit memos were forgeries. It also denied having pulled out the P56 million worth of products not covered by the credit memos.

Oddly enough, the MNC reportedly acknowledged during a meeting with the bank that its ASM had, in fact, issued the P58 million in credit memos to Interbrand but it claimed that these were forgeries and were unauthorized.

Confronted about the false information he provided, MNC’s Head of Distribution Management allegedly told the bank that the company prohibits them from disclosing such information about its distributors.

Clearly, a trusting Interbrand is the victim of a huge scam. It was played for a fool by the MNC and its ASM. The trusting bank was also misled into thinking that everything was hunky-dory even when the MNC already knew that its ASM was a crook.

Interbrand went belly up because of the MNC’s collusion with its crooked ASM. Of course, this does not absolve Interbrand of responsibility over its unpaid accounts. According to the bank, Interbrand became aware of its money troubles as early as mid-2009, yet it knowingly failed to advise its creditor of its dire financial status. And it continued to avail of the credit facility, although it knew that it no longer had the capability to pay the loans.

In its complaint, the bank said Interbrand and its officials, as well as the MNC, deliberately concealed information vital to the decision about the credit facility to protect their own business interests. It said the defendants "acted in utmost bad faith and in wanton, fraudulent, reckless, oppressive and malevolent manner."

The bank also accused the MNC of having "knowingly made a false representation with intent to mislead the Bank into renewing Interbrand’s credit facilities and allowing Interbrand to make further availments under the same to finance the purchase of (its) products which would eventually lead to (its) benefit."

It asked the court to order Interbrand, its four officials and the MNC, to pay the bank P109.792 million in damages as of March 22, 2010 plus interests, penalties and other charges; at least P1 million in exemplary damages; more than P28.448 million in attorney’s fees and litigation expenses; and from Interbrand and its four officials, P30,497.85 in liquidated damages as of March 22, 2010.

Hopefully, Interbrand, as primary victim, has also sued MNC for all it is worth!

***

Readers who missed a column can access www.duckyparedes.com/blogs. This is updated daily. Your reactions are welcome at duckyparedes@yahoo.com

Go DTI! Cheers to Director Subido!

Man in the Mirror

FROM THE STANDS By Domini M. Torrevillas (The Philippine Star) Updated August 19,

Ten days from now, Michael Jackson — the often misunderstood, yet ultimately revered King of Pop — would have turned 52 years old. While I am nowhere near being a die-hard MJ fanatic, I admit that I always found his music unique and awe-inspiring. Add his talented songwriting to his otherworldly dance moves, singular vocals, and the most technically-magnificent stage productions ever made, and one can easily argue that Jackson was the most influential entertainer of the 20th century.

Personally, I am more inclined towards (and familiar with) his classic Motown work with the Jackson Five, as well as earlier albums like “Got to Be There” (1972) and “Off the Wall” (1979). One truly interesting Michael Jackson song, however (and many sources claim that it was the artist’s best-loved work as well), is the relatively recent hit “Man in the Mirror”. Straying from his usual dance-inducing funk, this poignant song was first released as a single in early 1988, off his seventh solo album “Bad”. Owing largely to its powerful message, it has become one of Jackson’s most critically acclaimed songs. Whether in times of difficulty or transition — as our country is undergoing right now — Man in the Mirror’s refrain offers a stirring perspective on how we can best move forward, individually and as a nation:

I’m starting with the man in the mirror

I’m asking him to change his ways

And no message could have been any clearer:

If you want to make the world a better place

Take a look at yourself and then make the change

Undoubtedly, we are experiencing a renewed air of hope brought about by P-Noy’s uncontested victory and the seamless turnover of power. Many of those who were around to witness the EDSA People Power Revolution have drawn positive comparisons between the sentiments then and the sentiments now. Our social consciousness — apathetic at best, thanks to a lifetime of being desensitized by acts of daily corruption — now banks on the promise that this corruption can finally be eradicated.

Given this overwhelmingly positive outlook, the challenge for every Juan dela Cruz is to avoid turning into Juan Tamad, passively waiting for the guava to fall into his mouth. If the promises delivered during the most recent Presidential inauguration and State of the Nation Address have inspired us, we must remember that we each have a role in fulfilling them. While it is true that vision, leadership, and implementation begins from the top, accomplishing all of these ideals is a collective responsibility. If you want to make the world a better place, take a look at yourself and then make the change.

Consider a taxi driver from Tagbilaran City named Iluminado Boc, who returned $17,000 (more than four years worth of his earnings) that was left behind by a passenger. The irony of this situation is that if he had been corrupt, he would no longer be mahirap. But most likely, he looked at his rearview mirror, saw his reflection, and decided that his integrity did not have a dollar equivalent.

Then there is the case of DTI Legal Director Benjamin Subido, who drew the ire of a large multinational corporation engaged in food manufacturing and distribution, for apparently doing his job too efficiently. In line with P-Noy and DTI Secretary Greg Domingo’s mandate to streamline bureaucratic procedures, eliminate red tape, and expedite paperwork, Director Subido acted swiftly on a complaint filed against the MNC. Allegedly, the company had already made arrangements to ensure that this complaint would never see the light of day, so it filed a Motion to Inhibit Subido from the case. Undaunted, Subido pressed on and the company’s Motion was eventually denied.

While these may be exceptional examples of honesty and courage, our daily lives give us enough opportunities to create a ripple effect of optimism. Indeed, the so-called little things — obeying traffic rules, refusing to buy pirated DVDs or illegally downloading content, being on time for all appointments — amount to a lot. As the King of Pop himself says: no message could have been any clearer.

Paul Bulcke: Legal or Moral? Hmmm. Sounds Familiar!

"...While Villar maintained that he did not commit a crime, the party-list representative said the charge was not about legalities, but about ethics, which may not necessarily pertain to a criminal offense.

"...He should face such cases. I share the view that if you want to be President, you should act responsibly and show leadership,' he added.

--excerpt from the Philippine Daily Inquirer Article, 'Villar should face music, says worried Ocampo'

"...We can translate this as follows: 'The noble man places honor before self-interest; the lowly man puts self-interest before honor.'

".. Their moral content remains the same: They prove that the highest official of the land violated public morality. He placed his own self-interest ahead of the public good.

--excerpt from the Philippine Daily Inquirer Article, Adulterer, yes; plunderer, no

"...Nestlé believes that, as a general rule, legislation is the most effective safeguard of responsible conduct, although in certain areas, additional guidance to staff in the form of voluntary business principles is beneficial in order to ensure that the highest standards are met throughout the organisation

--excerpt from the Nestle Corporate Business Principles

***

I loved the last article when I said, 'Hmmm. Sounds Familiar,' simply because the line captures quite clearly the sheer absurdity of what certain legal (un)minds think.

I am by no means a lawyer and cannot presume to tell what is correct or what is not from a legal perspective. I do know, however, that the underlying foundation for everything legal is the Moral and the Ethical. However, as in the excerpts above, there ought to be some sort of higher standard. Problems arise as most guilty people have the tendency to equate morality, not quite so subtly if I may add, to legality, most especially if there is some perceived clever (or even not so clever) escape. Cleverness, however, will never replace Clarity.

Let's veer away from the examples above and let's just examine two examples of why Morality shouldn't be reduce to Law. (Sorry, lawyers, sue me if you want!) Firstly, let's take a look at abortion in the 1st world countries. Indeed, it is the Pro-choice versus Pro-life arguments which is a very explosive topic from Roe vs Wade until now. For me, the answer is simple. While abortion may be legal in some US States and some countries, it is to me, the murder of an innocent human being. Legal, yes. Moral, a resounding no!

Secondly, let's take a look at a somewhat perceived to be less controversial issue than abortion - whaling. There is an international moratorium on commercial whaling managed by the International Whaling Commission to stop the dwindling population. However, countries such Norway, Iceland and Japan say that it is legal to do commercial whaling! Funnily, these countries have a pretty substantial industry devoted to the hunting of these creatures. Strictly following the moratorium will obviously result in heavy economic losses to their industries. The higher standard is to simply respect the environment but what is legal is that the countries CAN whale hunt. Tsk, tsk.

***

I cannot say if Mr. Villar is guilty or not but as long he continues to be clever and not directly confront his peers and the people, I will always have doubts.

As for Nestle, the answer should already be obvious as it is contained in their own principles. Sadly, the clowns who brought all this shit to you are the ones covering their asses with either silence or cleverness. Perhaps it is time for the international body to step in and give the higher standard to their managers who are obviously bereft of it in their attempts to sweep their mistakes under the rug.

Remember, clarity will always prevail over cleverness. And moral versus legal? You be the judge.

NESTLE PHILIPPINES: SHAME ON YOU! - Repost from Ducky Paredes, Malaya, January 14 2009

A Battle of Dragons

“’Apparent Authority’ is a term used in the law of agency to describe a situation in which a principal leads a third party to believe that an agent has authority to bind the principal, even where the agent lacks the actual authority to do so.”

by Ducky Paredes

In the Chinese calendar, 2010 is the year of the metal tiger, when we should focus on certain character traits that will ensure prosperity and success for the whole year round. The qualities associated with the metal tiger are persistence, strength, and determination.

These are what friends who have gotten a raw deal at the hands of a contentious multinational need to eventually get their due.

You all know this company by now — it manufactures and markets a wide range of mass consumer products and, I’ve written about these problems several times.

Apparently, finally, after years of enduring abuse at the hands of this multinational, a number of its Central Luzon distributors have organized themselves and are now poised to fight back. Perhaps the year of the metal tiger has finally inspired them to stand up against a supposed corporate bully — a “Crouching Tiger”, ready to pounce on its tormentor and defend itself.

Based on reports, the last straw for these outraged – and mostly debt-ridden – distributors came when an internal scandal broke out that caused them to lose tens of millions of pesos individually. Unfortunately, after repeated attempts to air their grievances to the multinational, the response they got has allegedly been the formal equivalent of a shrug and an eye-roll.

Their troubles s began when the multinational’s Regional Sales Manager (RSM) for Central Luzon instructed her distributors to give an unheard-of discount (purportedly 10% to 12%) to one particular company. Since distributors are only allotted a 4% discount, some questioned how they could possibly still stay in business, losing 6% to 8% at each transaction. (A funny supposedly Chinese quote is: “Hindi bale malugi sa bawat benta basta kita sa lahat.”)

The answer to their conundrum came when Ms. RSM allegedly wrote them letters – using the multinational’s official letterhead, no less – promising that the multinational would definitely reimburse the difference. Given this directive and the document to back it up, the Central Luzon distributors had to comply.

The extremely fortunate recipient of these massive discounts was now in a position where it can undersell all other distributors, which it did, except those in Central Luzon, from where its cheap goods were coming. This privileged company apparently did just that, targeting Metro Manila wholesalers. Eventually, the multinational’s Metro Manila distributors began crying foul, wondering how a distributor from another area could possibly be selling the goods at such low prices. When they asked company officials to explain this puzzle, the multinational’s clarification supposedly went something like this: “I don’t know how that company does it, all I know is that they are able to do it. If your sales are suffering because you can’t find a way to match their price, then that’s your problem, not ours”.

Because of this, and faced with an illogical situation, a number of Metro Manila distributors had to absorb their losses; the smarter ones stopped dealing with this multinational

Meanwhile, over at Central Luzon, things began heating up when not a single distributor received the promised reimbursements from the mother company. This reached a bitter climax when the checks issued by the discount-privileged customer even started to bounce. Lo and behold – upon further investigation, it was discovered that the person running the company was the husband of Ms. RSM! Can you say “conflict of interest”?

Adding insult to injury (or lawsuit to malice) was the fact the checks that bounced were under the bank account of Ms. RSM herself.

At present, Ms. RSM is nowhere to be found, and is presumably in hiding with her husband. In their wake, they left behind total losses (from both Central Luzon and Metro Manila distributors) reportedly amounting to approximately P1 billion. More tangibly, hundreds of jobs and financial futures were ruined because of this purported scam.

The multinational – let’s call this the “hidden dragon” because of the way it presents itself as a family-oriented, wholesome company while, in reality, practically a criminal enterprise – seems to have washed its hands of the situation. Perhaps what they don’t realize is that under the legal principle of “Apparent Authority”, this multi may be in a real bind.

“Apparent Authority” is a term used in the law of agency to describe a situation in which a principal leads a third party to believe that an agent has authority to bind the principal, even where the agent lacks the actual authority to do so. In such circumstances, the law holds the principal liable for the acts of the agent, out of fairness to the third party.

Considering that the multinational had every chance (and the obligation to do so, since the RSM was apparently up to no good and it was the multinational’s duty to stop her) to correct the anomaly during its early stages (but instead chose to pursue their sales targets), this “hidden dragon” may soon be forced out of its cave and tamed in a court of law.

Hopefully.

It Really IS a Pattern!!!

I did not realize that when I gave out my email address that I would get a lot good words and contributions from my dear readers. It's pretty difficult for one person alone to look for various publicly available evidence in the web regarding our dear giant food manufacturer friend. But thanks to all of you (I hope that thanking you in public will be better than in private), I can now post several things!

This article was emailed by *********. As I promised, anonymity is guaranteed!

Anyway, this shows that the pattern of unfair labor practices, misleading consumers and businesses, using inferior products and passing it off as good is really global in nature! Attention DOLE, DTI, DOH! Look at the on-going strike in Laguna. Look at exploitation of Filipino SME's. Look at the discreet pull-out of various products throughout the years. Ooops. Discreet pull-out of products?!!!! That story will be told another day. In the meantime, please take a look at this article:

Another Nestlé Scandal

Nestlé's money grabbing demand on Ethiopia has refocused attention on the activities of this Swiss based multinational, the largest food processing company in the world. Nestlé is at the centre of another scandal. On 22 November the DAS security police ordered Nestlé Colombia to decomission 200 tons of imported powdered milk. The milk had come from Uruguay under the brand name Conaprole, but the sacks had been repackaged with labels stating they had come from Nestlé's Bugalagrande factory, and stamped with false production dates of 20th September and 6th October 2002. The real production dates were between August 2001 and February 2002. The discovery of another 120 tons on 6th December with similarly false country of origin and production dates, points to systematic fraud. Yet Nestlé responded indignantly, apparently it has been the victim of a set up, and in any case powdered milk has for industrial purposes an eighteen month lifespan. This bluster begs the obvious question, why relabel at all? The discoveries caused a stir, with senators insisting the Attorney General conduct a full inquiry leading to prosecutions. The quality of Colombian justice, especially its partiality towards multinationals, is such that this must be in question. Nonetheless Nestlé has been sharply condemned. Senator Jorge Enrique Robledo charged it with using sub-standard, contaminated milk, "a serious attack on the health of our people, especially the children". The latest outcry amplifies persistent complaints from the trade unions that Nestlé does not respect human rights. Since the 'dirty war' erupted in the early 1980s, Colombian trade unionists have been on the front line of targeted, but unofficial, repression. The Food and Drink Workers Union SINALTRAINAL was formed in 1982. Eight of its members working at Nestlé have been assassinated. The principal perpetrators are the paramilitary death squads. Their links with official entities are an open secret. For example, the Autodefensas Unidas de Colombia (AUC) arrived in the Cauca valley in 1999. Human Rights Watch reports that it was the Colombian army who set up this new AUC front (http://www.hrw.org/reports/2001), which declared local union leaders as military targets. Within six months six trade unionists had been assassinated, including SINALTRAINAL member Omar Dario Rodriguez Zuleta in Bugalagrande on 21 May 2002. There is no evidence connecting Nestlé with this. However the logic of the violations, to eliminate trade unionists and other social movement activists, corresponds with the company's own aggressive policy to liquidate the union. In late 2001 management at another Nestlé subsidiary 'Comestibles La Rosa' threatened workers that they must either renounce union membership or lose their jobs. In February 2002 the union formally presented demands to Cicolac, Nestlés milk processing subsidiary. Management tried to break the collective agreement covering 400 workers, sack 96 workers and break the contracts of another 58 workers so that there jobs could be contracted out through labour agencies. Sub-contracting and cheaper inputs are two aspects of the same drive to cut costs. This brings us back to the cheap powdered milk imports. According to SINALTRAINAL, Nestlé-Cicolac's new policy 'has generated misery for small and medium dairy farmers and for peasants'. One area known as 'Little Switzerland', where livelihoods depend 90% on milk output, has been devastated. SINALTRAINAL is a very good example of how workers in the 'Third World' have taken the initiative in resisting the multinationals. As they say: "Nestlé converts the factories into camps for the public security forces in order to create terror in the community, destroy the unity of the workers, and misinform the members of the union, with the goal of putting them against the leaders and destroying the movement ... This reality urgently demands the globalization of solidarity against the globalization of misery, oppression, and death of the communities." (OMFG!) These developments present a challenge to the movement in Britain, where labour relations with Nestlé have been relatively benign. Nestlé even had a stand at last year's TUC annual conference, jointly staffed by corporate executives and union representatives. It is time for a more robust and independent approach, based on relationships with unions like SINALTRAINAL in Colombia, and elsewhere to make common cause against a rapacious multinational. http://www.colombiasolidarity.org.uk/content/view/175/54/

The Real Life Soap (or shall I say, Coffee) Opera as written by Yutani Weyland (http://yutaniweyland.blogspot.com)

Monday, December 21, 2009

Nestle Philippines: Good scheming for a good life

Nice tag line. You can bet that they mean it in every sense of the words.

From 2003 to 2007, a distribution company operating in the Northern Quezon City area was illegally terminated for its services by Nestle Philippines, Inc.

Here is an overview of what is happening now not only to that Northern QC company but many others all over the country.

Nestle lures businessmen to become Nestle distributors that start with priming activities such as large amounts of actual start-up promotions, incentives and assistance (i.e. monetary, equipment, or services). Once a distributor takes the bait, they are slowly reeled in, with promising rates of return and greater rewards. With good early net earnings, distributors were encouraged to invest more money into the distribution business.

Once further engaged, Nestle systematically and deliberately withdraws these incentives. The distributor then has to play the investment game with the rules unfairly set in the favor of themselves where more often than not lead's to the distributor's demise.

When distributors are irretrievably committed in substantial financial manpower, and equipment investments, Nestle bullies them into absorbing the entirety of the financial risks. With this particular distributor, it started in 2006. All the hard work is passed on to the distributors through cleverly worded contracts of adhesion.

Fast Moving Consumer Goods (FMCG) distribution is generally a high volume low-margin business. Since trading and retailing in the Philippines is dominated by small and medium scale businesses, the average distributors of most FMCG manufacturers only have PhP 2-5 million in paid-up capital.

When its inventories financing was transferred to local banks in 2006, Nestle started to unfairly push and require its distributors to break barriers in order to sell more of their products without assuming any of the risks. Nestle then began to impose unreasonable sales targets and increased them geometrically ensnaring the distributor into a money trap.

This is their story and these are the players in the game:

1. John Miller - Current President and CEO of Nestle Philippines Inc. (NPI). Problems did not occur under him but being unfamiliar with the situation or perhaps covering his own ass, he does not want to "take the bull by the horns". He allegedly lets his committee decide what should be done, whether right or wrong, especially with how they are trying to weasel their way out of the Central Luzon incident. Could be guilty of sin of omission. Must step up and be morally upright to salvage reputation.

2. Nandu Nandkishore - Former President and CEO of NPI, now global head of infant nutrition. Problems exploded during his tenure. Perhaps, he is the instigator of the "weasel-your-way-out-by-using-SIZE-to-bully-the-small-Filipino-entrepreneur" strategy. Managed to escape by being transferred out to Switzerland. Perhaps, he is washing his hands now and leaving it up to John Miller to fix.

3. Shahab Bachani - Current Sales Director of NPI, to be transferred to Brand Marketing next January. Always blames the distributor for any problem and never himself nor his company. Perhaps, the main proponent of "Hit Target at All Costs" mentality leading to massive discounting (yet until about September, he denies that massive discounting exists). Pretends he wants to listen to the problem, concerns and opportunities of the distributor but apparently never retains anything. Possibly autistic.

4. Atty. Belen Caberte - Former Legal Chief of NPI, now serving as legal consultant to fix the mess she partially was responsible for. Reputation for being an excellent labor negotiator by allegedly bribing and granting favors to labor leaders. Purported NPI policy maker of "Using-your-own-money-against-you-to-make-you-sign-a-general-quitclaim" passing it off as a standard policy and therefore is morally correct. Also heard to direct their external legal team to delay cases against Nestle to wear out the poor Filipino victim.

5. Atty. Russell Andaya - Current Legal Chief of NPI, former second in command of Atty. Caberte. Apparently does whatever the Caberte and the board says.

6. Peter Noszek - Chief Finance Office of NPI. Possibly the one of about three sane figures in the NPI board but could be overruled by the other clowns. Excellent marathon runner.

7. Alejandrina Puno - Director of Corporate Communications. Active member of PANA board - "Truth in Advertising" yet was found out to contact by various columnists, opinion writers and editors of various newspapers to stop writing "negative" things by threatening to pull out Nestle's advertising from various broadsheets. She clearly violated the standard of PANA of not letting advertising budgets curtail journalistic freedom.

8. Atty. Aileen Cero - Legal Office of NPI. Allegedly notarized a document she negotiated that is in clear violation of notarial rules on conflict of interest. Implementor of the "Using-your-own-money-against-you-to-make-you-sign-a-general-quitclaim" NPI standard policy. Has pending disbarment case against her. Allegedly, was doing forum shopping by filing a case in a different court in relation to the pending disbarment case in the Supreme Court.