PepsiCo Inc. v. Oficina Central De Asesoria y Ayuda Tecnica, C.A.

945 F. Supp. 69 (1996)

From our private database of 46,300+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

PepsiCo Inc. v. Oficina Central De Asesoria y Ayuda Tecnica, C.A.

United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
945 F. Supp. 69 (1996)

Facts

PepsiCo, Inc., a United States corporation, owned the subsidiary Venezuelan company Pepsi-Cola Panamericana, S.A. (collectively, PepsiCo) (plaintiffs). Oficina Central de Asesoria y Ayuda Tecnica, C.A. (Oficina) (defendant) was a Venezuelan company that managed a group of bottling companies owned by Diego Cisneros (the Cisneros bottling companies). In 1988 PepsiCo executed exclusive bottling-rights contracts with the Cisneros bottling companies. Paragraph 23 of the contracts stated that if a contract was terminated early, the terminating party owed damages. Under paragraph 30, Venezuelan law governed the contracts, disputes were to be arbitrated pursuant to the rules of the International Chamber of Commerce, and arbitration would take place in New York subject to New York law. The Cisneros bottling companies terminated the contracts with PepsiCo before the contracts expired. PepsiCo demanded that Oficina pay it damages. Oficina filed suit in Venezuelan court seeking a declaration that the amount of damages Oficina owed was less than the amount demanded by PepsiCo. Oficina also argued that the arbitration agreement in paragraph 30 was inoperative. PepsiCo petitioned in United States federal district court for immediate relief, seeking compelled arbitration and an injunction preventing Oficina from proceeding with litigation in Venezuela. Oficina conceded that the United States federal district court had jurisdiction to compel arbitration but asked that the court defer jurisdiction to the Venezuelan court. Both the United States and Venezuela were members of the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (the convention).

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Rakoff, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 810,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 810,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 810,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,300 briefs - keyed to 988 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership