Day 024 - 15 Sep 94 - Page 28
1 have given us a draft prior to that. We may have
2 otherwise obtained it through the New York Attorney
3 General's office. That appears to be accurate. Not all
4 certainly of the letter, the historical reconstruction,
5 does.
6
7 I would add, your Lordship, that looking ahead, I do not
8 mean to be getting ahead of anything, but for
9 clarification, there is a July 23 letter that is the next
10 exhibit that went on behalf of both California and Texas
11 over my signature to Mr. Horwitz. That, both in my
12 recollection and from reading the letter, was sent out
13 before we received the July 21 letter. It is not in
14 response to it. Our response to the July 21 letter is
15 contained in exhibit 6 to my statement, which is the
16 August 5th letter, on behalf of Texas and California sent
17 by Mr. Sheldon on the California Attorney General
18 letterhead. In that we specifically declined to get into
19 a debate as to what caused the various problems they
20 alluded to in their July 21 letter.
21
22 We, in resolving any matter, whether it is by an
23 injunction or agreement such as this reflected here, a
24 letter agreement, or by a more formalised verified
25 settlement agreement, we have always agreed to let
26 companies put their version of the facts into the
27 resolution document, whether it is -- as long as we do not
28 have to agree to the truth of the matter that they are
29 asserting, we have no problem with them tooting their own
30 horn in whatever manner.
31
32 As far as we were concerned, the historical recitation,
33 while we disagreed with it, was their position. We did
34 not feel it was either necessary or in the public interest
35 to prolong the finalisation of the agreement by arguing
36 over who did what and when and, therefore, declined to do
37 so.
38
39 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Ms. Steel asked you if there was anything
40 else you want to say in relation to the contents of that
41 letter of 21st July?
42 A. I said "yes" your Lordship, but I believe my answer to
43 your Lordship's previous question gave everything else
44 I did want to say. So, at this point my answer would be
45 "No, I do not".
46
47 MR. MORRIS: In that letter we have just been concentrating on
48 it says in point 6: "We had several telephone
49 conversations with your representatives", that is
50 McDonald's, they are talking to your representatives,
51 "late in June and reported that we would not be able to
52 spell out the company's plans until after the 4th July
53 holiday." This, presumably, meant they talked to
54 yourself at that time?
55 A. Because Albert Sheldon and I were working together, it
56 might have been solely to Mr. Sheldon, it might have been
57 solely to me; they did report to either or both of us that
58 they would, as that says, not be able to let us know what
59 they were going to do in response to our offer of
60 settlement until after.
