I will not to summarize the full story, Jack Perkowski did it already in a brilliant manner along the past and current year, in Managing The Dragon:

Danone/Wahaha: Just the Facts, We Think (Part 1)

Danone/Wahaha: A Breakdown in Mutual Trust (Part 2)

Danone/Wahaha: Failure to Create a Common Vision (Part 3)

Danone/Wahaha: Dispute Resolution in China (Part 4)

Danone/Wahaha: Everybody Loses (Part 5)

Danone/Wahaha: Divine Intervention (Part 6)

Danone/Wahaha: Danone Loses in China Courts (Part 7)

Danone/Wahaha: Both Parties Agree to Truce (Part 8)

Danone/Wahaha: Learning From Crisis (Part 9)

Dan Harris at The China Law Blog did an excellent piece of work too, right on this page.

As Dan Harris says:

We love that dispute because within it lies just about every China business or business law issue one might confront.

And his conclusion to be, excerpted from A Tale of Two Companies:

- Stay calm and do not get involved with personal invective. This will nearly always backfire in the PRC media.

- Say as little as possible about the dispute. Any comment can be counter-productive.

- Lobbying high-level government officials may not help resolve a dispute because it can give lower-level officials an excuse to do nothing.

- Any strategy must be carefully and pragmatically planned based on the circumstances of the dispute. There is no magic formula.

My comment would be: Should any of the top French Business Schools be looking for case study, don’t search too far, there is a bunch of inspirational stuff there…