Findlaw reports that confectionery and gum manufacturer Wm. Wrigley Jr. Co. has announced that it has agreed to buy a number of confectionery brands, including Life Savers and Altoids, from Kraft Foods for $1.48 billion. The agreement between the two Chicago-based companies also covers the Creme Savers brand, as well as Trolli gummy candies, Sugus candies and other local and regional brands in the United States, Europe, Indonesia and Thailand.
Hershey Foods Corp., Mars Inc., Nestle SA and Cadbury Schweppes PLC were reportedly among the companies vying for the Kraft confections package. Said Bill Wrigley Jr., the company's chairman, president and CEO:
"There are only a handful of confectionery brands around the world that have the combination of heritage and vitality that can match up with Wrigley brands. Altoids and Life Savers are two such brands".Wrigley officials said the all-cash purchase price would be partially offset by about $300 million in cash tax benefits associated with amortization of intangible assets. The net acquisition cost of $1.18 billion represents 2.4 times estimated 2004 sales. The sale unloads brands that generated roughly $500 million in sales for Kraft and just less than $100 million in earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization.
Kraft, with $31 billion in sales, decided recently to cede most of its confection brands in order to concentrate its sales force on what food executives call the "centre" of the store -- the traditional supermarket aisles stocked with blocks of Kraft cheese, boxes of Nabisco cookies and cans of Maxwell House coffee.
"By enabling us to better focus our resources, the sale should create value for Kraft, as well as our employees, customers and shareholders,"said Kraft chief executive Roger K. Deromedi. Analysts said Wrigley had about 7.8 percent of the U.S. confectionery market before the sale was announced. Kraft had about 4.7 percent.
The IPKat says that's an awful lot for Wrigleys to swallow.
Click here for more on Altoids, adenoids, asteroids and aneroids.
More on Life Savers here, here (seems to be a Nestle brand in Australia) and here
BY GUM, THAT'S A LOT TO SPEND ON SWEETS ...
![BY GUM, THAT'S A LOT TO SPEND ON SWEETS ...]()
Reviewed by Jeremy
on
Monday, November 15, 2004
Rating:
Follow the IPKat on LinkedIn 
![[Guest post] Thou shalt not discriminate the Lego block over any other kind of product – GRUR speaks out on C-211/24](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgWJYQUJNvYydrZcjwSHPuxd14xX3_48aBusHKBogY-Wg1BPSJSABbFFjmGiUV3aqG2npP9xYaIl1vtWK5AsqGOQPgRD2TWFLhyyc4xGm1fHDD-tt9kHcrSSgAyju2P9wSKz0VW6h7D5MD4Hxd9vREyxKYzlMRNXxxtxc3DiNsXppfVaxgSxAMV/s72-c/21742619125_7c9e53cd39_o.png)
![[Guest post] Comparison of wine and gin: the EUIPO’s unquestionable Similarity Tool](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiNfTEBXiPVS0XjZi4mNE1OtXLxXiEp1PUgcUK7MMMXlfyTkO5SMXv-VCMXXNdS_F1XdMMxYca1VbBTGvvDeTVpo5x-5YwR7atQJmK3x32T8LACpf4308kht3nEtaxPwEPcGGrB0s5xjGktmQPOiVwPVLRO5JbW19qupc7xUtiVutvaWHow0OpBkA/s72-c/Picture%201.jpg)
![[Guest post] Muddying the waters of copyright – a rapid reaction to today’s IPEC decision which sees the sinking of the WaterRower’s claims for copyright protection](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh7chFANC7ppmZl4_nlR6_hZEcg6cOhVEJNVXqki4p82BoVlcLFotuOXzHWYD5lKLiiK_kRoWeXmJjjaV2DpoKsAWq8U3LFioO5W_841a9gcfDIFjvZWcGqfnr0jWJNtyXptIYR_8bxCssaDkJ9KMokuSqy1g65Il7p2hPwo4MfRCEGoUPQJesvbg/s72-w400-c-h189/Screenshot%202024-11-11%20at%2018.20.45.png)
Posts
No comments:
All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.
It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.
Learn more here: http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/p/want-to-complain.html