Price to PepsiCo for Not Being in Court: $1.26 Billion (YOUCH!)

Yahoo ^ | 10/28/09 | Lynne Marek

[EDINVA]

You’re trying to be funny?

Based on what PepsiCo is claiming about not knowing of the suit, if that’s true, there may be a defect in the service on the company’s WI registered agent. And, typically, the courts will give a notice, “show of cause” when a party doesnt respond to a complaint or motion, especially one that would warrant a $1.26B judgment.

Something is definitely odd about this.

[Mike Darancette]

They will have to settle this, idiots.

[Mike Darancette]

I was told acknowledging a lawsuit could be detrimental to your defence. I made no judgment about the case itself.

I can see why you are not now a lawyer. Ignoring a suit and all the attendant notices from the court and the plaintiff is like really bad (see above judgment).

[hadit2here]

**”Based on what PepsiCo is claiming about not knowing of the suit, if that’s true, there may be a defect in the service on the company’s WI registered agent.”**

If you read the article (which is written by ignorant ‘journalists’ and reported on Yahoo), PepsiCo is using the famous ‘the dog ate my homework’ defense. Their legal agent WAS served but put it aside because she was too busy ‘preparing for a board meeting’. Try that excuse next time you get a ticket or get served with legal papers.

**”And, typically, the courts will give a notice, “show of cause” when a party doesnt respond to a complaint or motion, especially one that would warrant a $1.26B judgment.”**

Neither the court nor the plaintiffs could know before hand what the final judgement would be, unless they were prescient. So that wouldn’t enter into it.

If the plaintiffs can show that PepsiCo received legal service on their legal corporate registered agent, who then put the papers aside because she was ‘too busy’ with other things, PepsiCo SHOULD take it in the shorts. Tough luck.

Maybe the judge should ask them if the tables were turned and PepsiCo had been the one filing the suit and the other guys were ‘too busy’ or ‘too big’ to properly handle the papers, what would PepsiCo want done- ‘to be fair’. And if they say they’d just let it go and wouldn’t sic all of their several hundred lawyer firms to strangle the last little loophole or undotted i or uncrossed t, then they’re lying through their teeth. And SHOULD take it in the shorts.

I don’t necessarily take either side on this one, but IF the plaintiff’s award was based on something like the number of bottles of bottled water PepsiCo sold from the time of the claimed infringement, then I don’t doubt that the $1.26 billion is a fair figure. Look up some statistics on what PepsiCo sells and their income and revenue figure per product line. Worldwide.

The plaintiffs may have just lucked out and PepsiCo screwed up royally, but ‘the dog ate my homework’ or ‘we were too busy to answer the suit’ - WHICH PEPSICO’s LAWYERS ADMIT in their answers/motions to vacate - makes me feel like the judge should tell them ‘TOUGH LUCK’ and they should take it in the shorts this time. The next time, maybe they won’t be ‘too busy’ to answer a suit and lose a billion or so...

#8^D

[EDINVA]

If the registered agent was served properly and is a company that specializes in accepting service for corporate clients, seems that company is open to a counter suit. If the registered agent is an in-house employee, I’d guess his/her career with PepsiCo is pretty much history.

“Neither the court nor the plaintiffs could know before hand what the final judgement would be, unless they were prescient. So that wouldn’t enter into it.”

The judgment was probably the full amount claimed in the unanswered complaint, wouldn’t you think ? It’s not likely a judge would pull that amount out of thin air.

My guess is that the legion of PepsiCo lawyers will take the tack of telling the plaintiffs that they will appeal and drag out any payment until they are both long dead.