Thursday, 2 January 2014

SWATCH GROUP LTD. (INFORMANT) VS. TIFFANY & CO. (DEFENDANT)

VERDICT:

In the case of New York jeweler, Tiffany & Co. versus Swiss watch company, Swatch, a Dutch arbitration court has ruled in favour of the Swiss, ordering Tiffany to pay $449 million in damages to Swatch on December 21, 2013.

BRIEF OF FACTS:

Swatch and Tiffany entered into a joint venture to develop Tiffany-branded watches. The joint venture, which was supposed to last for 20 years and give Tiffany a better foothold in the watch world, began to fall apart in 2011 when Swatch cancelled its co-operation with the jeweler. Swatch alleged Tiffany of breaching terms of contract by delaying introduction of their joint products. Tiffany countersued the Swiss watch company for not getting watches onto the shelves of other retailers and in 2012 the case went into arbitration in the Netherlands, where the joint venture had been established.
Trouble began brewing in the year 2009. Tiffany wanted a company with watch expertise to take over its still-new luxury-watch business that made up a small percentage of its annual overall take and Swatch wanted to have a high-end jewellery-watch brand as part of its large portfolio of timepieces. 

CONCLUSION:

The $449 million that Swatch was awarded is ‘only a fraction of the total amount they wanted in damages.’ The informant had originally asked for $4.2 billion.
Tiffany is to pay the amount awarded as penalty plus a statutory compound interest from June 30, 2012 up to the period of payment. The amount awarded reflects approximately 8.8% amount claimed by the informant. The defendant is required to pay two-thirds of the costs of arbitration. Also, it is required to pay two-thirds of the reasonable legal-fees, expenses and other costs incurred by Swatch for arbitration purpose aggregating to approximately $8.8 million.
The award will help offset the $1 billion Swatch paid to acquire Harry Winston earlier this year when it decided that instead of partnering with a luxury jewellery maker, it might be better to just have one in the brand stable.

No comments:

Post a Comment