Pepsi 2013 Annual Report Download - page 41

23
owned. Europe also owns or leases approximately 125 plants and approximately 525 warehouses, distribution
centers and offices.
Asia, Middle East and Africa
AMEA’s most significant properties are its beverage plants located in Sixth of October City, Egypt, Rayong,
Thailand and Amman, Jordan, and its snack manufacturing and processing plants located in Sixth of October
City, Egypt, which are owned, and Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, which is leased. AMEA also owns or leases
approximately 45 plants and approximately 490 distribution centers, warehouses and offices. In 2012, we
contributed our company-owned and joint venture bottling operations in China to Tingyi. AMEA continues
to utilize properties owned or leased by Tingyi.
Shared Properties
QFNA shares 12 warehouse and distribution centers and eight offices jointly with PAB and FLNA and shares
two additional offices with FLNA. QFNA also shares 25 warehouses and distribution centers, one production
facility and two offices with PAB, as well as one research and development laboratory. FLNA shares one
production facility with LAF. PAB, Europe and AMEA share two production facilities and a service center.
Europe and AMEA share a research and development facility. PAB and LAF share four offices. PAB and
AMEA share two concentrate plants.
In addition to the company-owned or leased properties described above, we also utilize a highly distributed
network of plants, warehouses and distribution centers that are owned or leased by our contract manufacturers,
co-packers, strategic alliances or joint ventures in which we have an equity interest.
Item 3. Legal Proceedings.
As previously disclosed, on January 6, 2011, Wojewodzka Inspekcja Ochrony Srodowiska, the Polish
environmental control authority (the Polish Authority), began an audit of a bottling plant of our subsidiary,
Pepsi-Cola General Bottlers Poland SP, z.o.o. (PCGB), in Michrow, Poland. On February 18, 2011, the Polish
Authority alleged that in 2009 the plant was not in compliance with applicable regulations requiring the use
of approved laboratories for the analysis of the plant’s waste and sought monetary sanctions of $700,000.
As previously disclosed, PCGB appealed this decision and, on January 15, 2013, the Supreme Administrative
Court issued a final, non-appealable decision finding that the sanctions against PCGB were imposed in
violation of applicable environmental law and released PCGB from all liability with respect to such sanctions.
On July 30, 2013, the Polish Authority alleged that the plant was not in compliance in 2009 with applicable
regulations governing the taking of water samples for analysis of the plant’s waste and sought monetary
sanctions of $650,000. PCGB has appealed this decision and the appeal is pending.
Also as previously disclosed, on May 8, 2011, Kozep-Duna-Volgyi Kornyezetvedelmi, Termeszetvedelmi
es Vizugyi Felugyeloseg (Budapest), the regional Hungarian governmental authority (the Hungarian
Authority), notified our subsidiary, Fovarosi Asvanyviz-es Uditoipari Zrt. (FAU), that it assessed monetary
sanctions of approximately $220,000 for alleged violation of applicable wastewater discharge standards in
2010. Also as previously disclosed, on August 9, 2012, the Hungarian Authority notified FAU that it assessed
monetary sanctions of approximately $153,000 for alleged violation of applicable wastewater discharge
standards in 2011. Following an appeal of this decision by FAU, the Orszagos Kornyezetvedelmi,
Termeszetvedelmi es Vizugyi Felugyeloseg (Budapest) increased the 2011 sanctions to $320,000 and the
2012 sanctions to $170,000, on July 22, 2013 and August 12, 2013, respectively, on the grounds that certain
pollutant factors had not been taken into account by the Hungarian Authority. FAU has appealed these
decisions and the appeals are pending at the Fovarosi Kozigazgatasi es Munkaugyi Birosag (Budapest).