Regular readers of this blog know the Danone-Wahaha battle to be one of our favorite topics, mostly because of the myriad lessons it teaches. I wrote an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal on it and Steve Dickinson was quoted on it in the New York Times and the International Herald Tribune, and then gave a speech on it for JP Morgan and wrote on it for the China Economic Review [link no longer exists]. We have also been known to write a post or two on it, including the following:
- “Danone v. Wahaha — Which Of Us Is The Most China Rookie?“
- “China Litigation: You Want Government With That?“
- “Danone and China’s Wahaha: A Lecture on How (Not) to Make Allies Enemies“
A lawyer I know referred to it as “China writ large” and though I do not know exactly what that means, it sounds so good I have to agree. I am guessing the good folks over at the Boulder2Beijing blog would agree also as they have written a fourteen page law journal article on what can be learned about Chinese law from the dispute. Having already graduated from law school, I have a fairly strong aversion to reading law journal articles outside of work, but I did skim this one [you will need to download it in pdf format] and it looks quite interesting and quite thoughtful. It is entitled “Wahaha as Pedagogy” and it is written by Micah Schwalb. I was particularly impressed by its diversity and depth of source material. For those with an in-depth law journal level interest in the Danone Wahaha dispute, particularly as it relates to Chinese company law, I strongly urge you to check out Mr. Schwalb’s article.