Coca Cola 2008 Annual Report Download - page 23

nine still beverage production facilities and four bottled water facilities, lease one bottled water facility, and own
a facility that manufactures juice concentrates for foodservice use, all of which are included in the North
America operating segment.
We own or hold a majority interest in or otherwise consolidate under applicable accounting rules bottling
operations that own 118 principal beverage bottling and canning plants located throughout the world. These
plants are included in the Bottling Investments operating segment.
We own a facility in Brussels, Belgium, which consists of approximately 315,000 square feet of office and
technical space. This facility is included in the Europe operating segment. We also own or lease real estate,
office space and other facilities throughout the world which are used for administrative facilities, warehouses
and retail operations. In addition, as of December 31, 2008, our Company owned and operated 29 principal
beverage concentrate and/or syrup manufacturing plants located throughout the world. These properties are
generally included in the geographic operating segment in which they are located.
Management believes that our Company’s facilities for the production of our products are suitable and
adequate, that they are being appropriately utilized in line with past experience, and that they have sufficient
production capacity for their present intended purposes. The extent of utilization of such facilities varies based
upon seasonal demand for our products. However, management believes that additional production can be
obtained at the existing facilities by adding personnel and capital equipment and, at some facilities, by adding
shifts of personnel or expanding the facilities. We continuously review our anticipated requirements for facilities
and, on the basis of that review, may from time to time acquire additional facilities and/or dispose of existing
facilities.
ITEM 3. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS
The Company is involved in various legal proceedings, including the proceedings specifically discussed
below. Management of the Company believes that any liability to the Company that may arise as a result of these
proceedings will not have a material adverse effect on the financial condition of the Company and its
subsidiaries taken as a whole.
Carpenters
On October 27, 2000, a class action lawsuit (Carpenters Health & Welfare Fund of Philadelphia & Vicinity v.
The Coca-Cola Company, et al.) was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia alleging that the Company, M. Douglas Ivester, Jack L. Stahl and James E. Chestnut violated antifraud
provisions of the federal securities laws by making misrepresentations or material omissions relating to the
Company’s financial condition and prospects in late 1999 and early 2000. A second, largely identical lawsuit
(Gaetan LaValla v. The Coca-Cola Company, et al.) was filed in the same court on November 9, 2000. The
complaints allege that the Company and the individual named officers: (1) forced certain Coca-Cola system
bottlers to accept ‘‘excessive, unwanted and unneeded’’ sales of concentrate during the third and fourth quarters
of 1999, thus creating a misleading sense of improvement in our Company’s performance in those quarters;
(2) failed to write down the value of impaired assets in Russia, Japan and elsewhere on a timely basis, again
resulting in the presentation of misleading interim financial results in the third and fourth quarters of 1999; and
(3) misrepresented the reasons for Mr. Ivester’s departure from the Company and then misleadingly reassured
the financial community that there would be no changes in the Company’s core business strategy or financial
outlook following that departure. Damages in an unspecified amount were sought in both complaints.
On January 8, 2001, an order was entered by the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia consolidating the two cases for all purposes. The Court also ordered the plaintiffs to file a Consolidated
Amended Complaint. On July 25, 2001, the plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint, which largely
repeated the allegations made in the original complaints and added Douglas N. Daft as an additional defendant.
21