LOS ANGELES | 7 January 2011 12: 46 am
LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Starbucks Corp said a federal judge, he gave warning plenty of Kraft Foods Inc. of its plans to end their partnership of grocery and the author of food is now permanent orderly rupture.
Deposits legal Thursday, most large chain of coffee in the world has asked the U.S. District Court judge Cathy Seibel, to refuse the application for Kraft to stop Starbucks to end their 12 years and the company to a new partner agreement.
In the last flare the increasingly bitter battle, Starbucks argued that an injunction of the Court has rendered it harm in leaving Kraft in charge of the sale of its coffee packaged in supermarkets and other stores in the United States, Canada, Britain and other parts of Europe.
Starbucks repeatedly argued that Kraft breached the contract by the mismanagement of its products and neglecting its brand in the aisle of the grocery store.
The Seattle-based company said it Kraft concerns earlier a year earlier, although the packaged largest North American food maker has not budged to remedy.
End of last year, Starbucks announced its intention to terminate the company on March 1. She also public with its intention to replace Kraft with private Acosta Inc.
Deposits on Thursday accused Starbucks than Kraft to efforts towards entrepreneurship Acosta. Among other things, he said that Kraft sent a cease and desist letter threatening new partner Starbucks with a request for interference torturous, if she tried to distribute or commercialize the products before Starbucks or after March 1.
When asked to respond to this allegation, Kraft Mike Mitchell spokesman said that no there was "no valid termination of the agreement." The contract is still in force. There is therefore no transition. »
As Mitchell, that he could not confirm allegation Starbucks on Kraft Acosta letter stated.
"Kraft efforts to intervene in an orderly transition of the company (consumer packaged goods) have caused significant damage to Starbucks," coffee company said in its filing.
Kraft, resisting any infringement, holds that Starbucks must pay at the end of the transaction. The company generates annual revenues of $ 500 million, and analysts have a value of a termination payment both in $ 1.5 billion.
"This is a clear case of irreparable harm we believe justify granting a preliminary injunction," said Mitchell.
BEANS
Starbucks, which argued that it is entitled to terminate the contract for some reason, said the partnership represents approximately 1% of annual revenues from Kraft and that ending the deal would not result in the kind of irreparable harm necessary for the Court to intervene and prevent the Starbucks to terminate the relationship.
"Starbucks notified Kraft several months to allow plan for life after Starbucks...". Kraft does not and cannot, allege that such termination will have a significant impact on society as a whole, "said Starbucks.
No comments:
Post a Comment