: Judge hands down $1.26 BILLION judgment against Pepsi



The Tony Show
11-03-09, 08:44 PM
Two guys sued Pepsi, claiming that they actually came up with the idea for bottled water 30 years ago and Pepsi stole the concept. For whatever reason, Pepsi failed to show up in court and defend themselves, and the judge ruled in favor of the plaintiffs to the tune of $1.26 billion (with a B) dollars.




When PepsiCo Inc. didn't show up in Jefferson County Circuit Court to defend itself against accusations it hijacked the idea of two Wisconsin men to sell water in bottles, a judge decided against the soft-drink maker and handed the pair one big gulp of a damage award - $1.26 billion.

Now PepsiCo, alarmed by the enormous default judgment, is pushing hard to have the award rescinded.
Although the case was filed in April and the damage award was handed down by Circuit Judge Jacqueline R. Erwin on Sept. 30, PepsiCo contends the proper people in the company didn't even know about it until Oct. 5 because of a series of miscues.

PepsiCo did not immediately respond to a Journal Sentinel request for comment, but company spokesman Joe Jacuzzi told the Associated Press the company feels it has been denied due process and wants the opportunity to defend itself, although it acknowledges an "internal process issue."

The case was filed by Charles A. Joyce of Juneau and James R. Voigt of Cleveland, who allege that in 1981 they entered into confidentiality agreements with an executive of Watertown-based Pepsi products distributor Wis-Pak Inc. and an executive of Carolina Canners Inc. of Cheraw, S.C., about their idea for a new product.

Joyce and Voigt contend that Wis-Pak and Carolina Canners breached their confidentiality agreement with them because Pepsi began making and distributing its purified bottled water product Aquafina. The lawsuit argues that PepsiCo used information it knew was secret when it began selling Aquafina years later.

Full Story Here (http://www.jsonline.com/business/67094322.html).

Among the several ways that this story is shocking however, no aspect is more amazing than the fact that Pepsi hasa spokesman named Joe Jacuzzi- That's awesome!

CIWS
11-04-09, 07:33 AM
Bah, let them defend themselves at appeal. They just didn't take the case seriously, that is until they lost big. Then it became serious.

RightTurn
11-04-09, 09:02 AM
Why did the plaintiffs wait nearly 30 years to file their suit? What B.S. :coffee: Too many judges nowadays with a God complex IMO.

billc83
11-04-09, 09:28 AM
$1.26 billion is a lot of dough.

Now that I think about it, I think I came up with the idea of selling donut holes a few years back. Time for Krispy Kreme to pay up... :D

Stingroo
11-04-09, 10:12 AM
Krispy Kreme AND Dunkin' Donuts you mean.

Submariner409
11-04-09, 11:59 AM
Hmmmmmmmm...............I never did get the deed to that bridge to Brooklyn. Time for an ambulance chaser of a lawyer.

dkozloski
11-04-09, 01:12 PM
There have been some notable default judgements that stood up during appeal. In cases where the defendant has ignored or mishandled the summons like Pepsi did in this case the court sometimes takes the position that it's tatamount to contempt of court and really lowers the boom on them. If you laugh at the court case the judge may take the position that you're laughing at him and he will not like it.

I remember one case in New York where an owner of a large apartment building ignored a summons from a contractor that never got paid for repair work until he was confronted with a marshall conducting a sale of the apartment building on the building steps. He tried to laugh it off, got hammered by the judge, and lost the building, worth millions, to the contractor. He made his big mistake when he tried to blame a secretary by claiming she never advised him of the pending suit. She proved she'd been begging him to do something about it and the judge really got pissed when he decided that the apartment owner had committed bald faced perjury in front of him. The appeals court agreed.