Coca Cola 2006 Annual Report Download - page 26

Download and view the complete annual report

Please find page 26 of the 2006 Coca Cola annual report below. You can navigate through the pages in the report by either clicking on the pages listed below, or by using the keyword search tool below to find specific information within the annual report.

Page out of 144

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14
  • 15
  • 16
  • 17
  • 18
  • 19
  • 20
  • 21
  • 22
  • 23
  • 24
  • 25
  • 26
  • 27
  • 28
  • 29
  • 30
  • 31
  • 32
  • 33
  • 34
  • 35
  • 36
  • 37
  • 38
  • 39
  • 40
  • 41
  • 42
  • 43
  • 44
  • 45
  • 46
  • 47
  • 48
  • 49
  • 50
  • 51
  • 52
  • 53
  • 54
  • 55
  • 56
  • 57
  • 58
  • 59
  • 60
  • 61
  • 62
  • 63
  • 64
  • 65
  • 66
  • 67
  • 68
  • 69
  • 70
  • 71
  • 72
  • 73
  • 74
  • 75
  • 76
  • 77
  • 78
  • 79
  • 80
  • 81
  • 82
  • 83
  • 84
  • 85
  • 86
  • 87
  • 88
  • 89
  • 90
  • 91
  • 92
  • 93
  • 94
  • 95
  • 96
  • 97
  • 98
  • 99
  • 100
  • 101
  • 102
  • 103
  • 104
  • 105
  • 106
  • 107
  • 108
  • 109
  • 110
  • 111
  • 112
  • 113
  • 114
  • 115
  • 116
  • 117
  • 118
  • 119
  • 120
  • 121
  • 122
  • 123
  • 124
  • 125
  • 126
  • 127
  • 128
  • 129
  • 130
  • 131
  • 132
  • 133
  • 134
  • 135
  • 136
  • 137
  • 138
  • 139
  • 140
  • 141
  • 142
  • 143
  • 144

The Company believes it has substantial factual and legal defenses to the plaintiffs’ claims and intends to
defend itself vigorously.
In February 2006, two largely identical cases were filed against the Company and CCE, one in the Circuit
Court of Jefferson County, Alabama (Coca-Cola Bottling Company United, et al. v. The Coca-Cola Company and
Coca-Cola Enterprises Inc.), and the other in the United States District Court for the Western District of
Missouri, Southern Division (Ozarks Coca-Cola/Dr Pepper Bottling Company, et al. v. The Coca-Cola Company
and Coca-Cola Enterprises Inc.) by bottlers that collectively represented approximately 10 percent of the
Company’s U.S. unit case volume for 2005. The plaintiffs in these lawsuits allege, among other things, that the
Company and CCE are acting in concert to establish a warehouse delivery system to supply Powerade to a major
customer, which the plaintiffs contend would be detrimental to their interests as authorized distributors of this
product. The plaintiffs claim that the alleged conduct constitutes breach of contract, implied covenant of good
faith and fair dealing, and expressed covenant of good faith by the Company and CCE. In addition, the plaintiffs
seek remedies against the Company and CCE on a promissory estoppel theory. The plaintiffs seek actual and
punitive damages, interest, and costs and attorneys’ fees, as well as permanent injunctive relief, in the Alabama
case, and preliminary and permanent injunctive relief in the federal case. The Company and CCE filed motions
to dismiss the plaintiffs’ complaint in the Alabama case, and the Court scheduled a hearing on these motions for
early May 2006. In the federal case, the Court granted the Company’s and CCE’s motion to change venue to the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. Shortly thereafter, the plaintiffs in the federal
case withdrew their request for preliminary injunctive relief. The Company and CCE also filed motions to
dismiss the plaintiffs’ complaint in the federal case.
During the third quarter of 2006, a motion by Coca-Cola Bottling Co. Consolidated (‘‘Consolidated’’) to
intervene in the federal case was granted, and the plaintiffs in both cases amended their pleadings to add claims
challenging warehouse delivery programs for Dasani and Minute Maid juices. Also, during the fourth quarter of
2006, the parties engaged in a temporary ‘‘slow-down’’ of the litigation in order to explore business discussions
that might lead to resolution of the issues in the case. As a result of these discussions, the parties have agreed to
work together to develop and test new customer service and distribution systems to supplement their direct store
delivery system. Pursuant to that agreement, as of February 13, 2007, all but five of the plaintiffs in these lawsuits
have signed settlement agreements and will dismiss their lawsuits without prejudice. CCE and Consolidated
have also signed agreements in which they have committed to participate in the new customer service and
delivery systems as part of the settlement arrangements.
In the event settlement is not reached with the remaining plaintiffs in these lawsuits, the Company believes
that it has substantial factual and legal defenses to the remaining plaintiffs’ claims and intends to defend the
cases vigorously.
The Company is involved in various other legal proceedings. Management of the Company believes that any
liability to the Company that may arise as a result of these proceedings, including the proceedings specifically
discussed above, will not have a material adverse effect on the financial condition of the Company and its
subsidiaries taken as a whole.
ITEM 4. SUBMISSION OF MATTERS TO A VOTE OF SECURITY HOLDERS
Not applicable.
ITEM X. EXECUTIVE OFFICERS OF THE COMPANY
The following are the executive officers of our Company as of February 20, 2007:
Ahmet Bozer, 46, is President of the Eurasia Group. Mr. Bozer joined the Company in 1990 as a Financial
Control Manager for Coca-Cola USA and held a number of other roles in the finance organization. In 1994, he
joined Coca-Cola Bottlers of Turkey (now Coca-Cola Icecek A.S.), a joint venture between the Company, The
24