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.

Prev Next Index