Xerox responds to Fujifilm damages claim

John Visentin, the new CEO of Xerox, has written a letter to Shigetaka Komori, chairman of Fujifilm, calling the lawsuit for $1 billion damages that Fujifilm has filed against Xerox “a desperate, misguided negotiating ploy to save a takeover that – as a result of the surreptitious actions of your team – to this day remains enjoined by order of the New York State Supreme Court.”

John Visentin, CEO of Xerox.

Visentin references Xerox’s belief that the accounting scandal that rocked the Fuji Xerox joint venture in recent years justifies terminating the agreement to sell Xerox to Fujifilm, stating: “Xerox legally and justifiably terminated the Share Subscription Agreement in accordance with that contract’s unambiguous termination provisions following a number of clear material breaches by Fujifilm.”

He goes on to call Fujifilm a “bad actor” in this respect, saying: “Fujifilm, as 75% owner and controlling partner of Fuji Xerox, has concealed from Xerox the true extent of a massive and ongoing accounting fraud at Fuji Xerox caused by Fujifilm’s own gross mismanagement. The mismanagement and resulting accounting fraud have weighed heavily on our dealings and have cost us both a significant amount of time and money. Along the way, there were multiple material breaches by Fujifilm and/or Fuji Xerox of important provisions contained in the Share Subscription Agreement and the various Fuji Xerox joint venture agreements that have made clear your lack of good faith.”

Visentin makes it clear that Xerox is not looking for a new proposal to salvage the deal that was announced back in January, noting that the deal has been blocked by a New York court ruling.

He points out that the Technology Agreement that underpins the Fuji Xerox joint venture will expire in 2021 and that Xerox will not renew it. Instead, he says that Xerox is now starting to source products from other suppliers in a clear attempt to break away from Fujifilm and will start to sell products directly into the Asia Pacific market after 2021.

Essentially, this represents a ratcheting up of the tension between the two companies – it’s hard to see any real winners in this situation.





Syndicate content

You can license the articles from Printing and Manufacturing Journal to reproduce in other publications. I generally charge around £150 per article but I’m open to discussing this for each title, particularly for publishers that want to use multiple stories. I can provide high res versions of images for print publications.

I’m used to working with overseas publishers and am registered for VAT with the UK’s HMRC tax authority but obviously won’t charge VAT to companies outside the UK. You can find further details and a licensing form from this page, or just contact me directly here.

Support this site

If you find the stories here useful then please consider making a donation to help fund Printing and Manufacturing Journal, either as a one-off or a repeat payment. Journalism is only really useful if it’s truly independent and this is the only such news source serving the print/ manufacturing sectors.

However, there are costs involved in travelling to cover events, as well as maintaining this site, not to mention the time that it takes to carry out research, check facts and interview people. So if you value this work, then please help to maintain it and keep it free to read.


Never miss a story – subscribe to Printing and Manufacturing Journal to receive an email notification every time an article is published here. It’s completely free of charge and you can cancel the subscription at any point without any hassle. There’s no need to provide any information other than an email address and subscribers details are not for sale so there’s no risk of any further marketing spam.

Related stories


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *