NEWS FROM BRAZIL supplied by SEJUP
(Servico Brasileiro de Justica e Paz).
Number 506, March 4, 2004
-Coca-Cola accused of misconduct in Brazil
Since August of last year, Brazilian manufacturer Dolly Soda has made
various accusations against the Coca-Cola Company. The president of Dolly
Soda, Laerte Codonho, told a reporter of Brasil de Fato how Coke has
hired a lobby group to control various sectors of the Brazilian government to
act in its favor, and revealed detailed documents of Coke’s plans to eliminate
Dolly from the market.
The accusations began when Rede TV! aired a video tape of Coke’s ex-director
of strategic acquisitions, Luiz Eduardo Capistrano do Amaral, divulging how he
planned to eliminate Dolly Soda at the orders of Coke’s headquarters in
Atlanta, Georgia, USA.
Events in the Brazilian Congress have strengthened Codonho’s accusations.
During Congress’ ordinary session, December 3, 2003, the request presented by
house member Celso Russomano to ask for a public audience with Coca-Cola and the
Defense of the Consumer, Environment and Minorities of the Federal House was
taken off the voting agenda in the absence of Russomano. House Deputy
Givaldo Carimbão, president of the Commission, confirmed the version sent out
by Russomano’s press secretary, who said that house member Arnaldo Faria de Sa
exerted great pressure to get the proposal off the voting agenda. This
sort of political maneuvering happens often, but in this case there is something
peculiar: Arnaldo Faria de Sa, the leader of the PTB party in the House, is not
part of the Commission of the Defense of the Consumer. Further, he was present
in the session of the same Commission on November 27th.
At that session, Russomano presented the video tapes of Capistrano.
Faria de Sa’s special interest in the case remains unexplained.
His presence at a commission meeting of which he is not a member raises
suspicions that he is acting in favor of Coke’s lobbying efforts in the
Congress. The coordinator of the Coke lobby is Alexandre Paes dos Santos, who
has already had recognized contact with Faria de Sa. In 2001, Faria de Sa
furnished Paes dos Santos with credentials which gained him free access to
plenary sessions of the House. In spite of this, there is still no actual
proof that Faria de Sa and Paes dos Santos are working together in Coke’s
benefit.
Faria de Sa responded to inquiries that he no longer has connections to the Coke
lobby. Regarding his participation in the December 3rd
ordinary session of the Commission of the Defense of Consumers, he simply
replied, “no comment.”
In a collective interview on February 11, the press secretary of Dolly Soda
supplied a document dated September 1, 2003, which proves that a contract was
made between IPA (Paes dos Santos’ business) and Coca-Cola, via Recofarma, one
of the factories of Brazil Coca-Cola. Another document dated November 19,
2003, shows proof of a contract with Ideas, Facts and Texts, a business owned by
Luis Costa Pinto, a cousin of Paes dos Santos’ current girlfriend.
According to the document, Pinto’s mission is to monitor activities of the
Commission of the Defense of the Consumer in relation to any attempts to
schedule a public hearing with Coca-Cola. He also is to monitor the media,
especially any related news from reporters who cover the activities of the
Secretary of Economic Rights.
According to the documents presented by Dolly Soda, the principal objective of
Coke in contracting the lobby group is to avoid any investigations into the
accusations made by Laerte Codonho. If there is to be any investigation,
Coke wants it to be made through the Secretary of Economic Rights, where Coke
has more lobbying power. ( Documents show that Daniel de Carvalho Mendonça, the
manager of government issues of Coca-Cola International, asked for a
reimbursement of a dinner he had with a technical advisor of the Secretary of
Economic Rights on November 19th and a December 12th
lunch he had with Alexandre Paes dos Santos.)
However, investigations could begin soon as house deputy Givaldo Carimbão,
together with Celso Russomano, will this month propose another request for a
public hearing with those involved in the accusations.
Below are excerpts of Brasil de Fato’s interview with the president of
Dolly Soda, Laerte Codonho:
Brasil de Fato: How in practice did Coke’s scheme to take Dolly out of the
market work?
Laerte Codonho: The strategy, according to the director of Coca-Cola himself,
involved suppliers, the Public Ministry, the Federal Income Tax Service,
sabotage and spying.
BF: How did these strategies function with suppliers?
LC: Through pressure exerted on the suppliers to try to paralyze distribution of
Dolly products. This happened in October of 2000, so that Dolly would
enter into the summer months without orders.
BF: And how did Coke know who was selling for Dolly?
LC: By knowing the market well, but also from data Capistrano had obtained from
the Federal Income Tax Service.
BF: How did the scheme work with the Public Ministry?
LC: According to Capistrano, they would sue the Public Ministry only to create
problems, a strategy he called “perturbation.” Enter a lawsuit here,
another one there. You perturb the congress so that it can’t do its job,
which was also the case with Dolly, not letting it work.
BF: With this strategy, you think that Coca-Cola was trying to control the
Brazilian State?
LC: Not only trying....they certainly thought they in fact had control.
With these revelations now, the director of Coca-Cola himself says that they do
not want the accusations investigated in the House of Representatives, but in
the Secretary of Economic Rights (SDE). We demonstrated that Coke’s
manager of governmental issues had dinner with a technical advisor of the SDE,
and this advisor, in this case, operates as a judge. So, you imagine the
accused having dinner with the who is going to judge this shameful case.
It is shameful, wouldn’t you say?
BF: In an interview with Pasquim21, you said that last year you made your
accusations public at 6:30 p.m., and that at 11:00 p.m. Nelson Schincariol was
killed. [Schincariol is another Brazilian manufacturer of beverages]. Is
there a connection here?
LC: No. I can’t confirm this. I can only say that Coca-Cola
itself, through Capistrano, said that there is no competition in Mexico because
they assassinated the competitors, killed them, eliminated them physically.
And these are the same people who control Coca-Cola in São Paulo.
Note: Brasil de Fato contacted Coca-Cola, but due to problems with
deadlines, was unable to furnish the interview at this time.
Source: Brasil de Fato, February 19-25, 2004
The reproduction of this material is permitted as long as the source is
cited.
The reproduction of this material is permitted as long as the source is cited. If you wish to contact us, send a message to braziljusticenet@braziljusticenet.org. If you wish to be removed from our email list, go to http://braziljusticenet.org/subscribe.htm, type in your email address, and click "unsubscribe" button.