Day 025 - 16 Sep 94 - Page 60


     
     1        suggesting) that they started the good move of their own
     2        initiative, together with New York; they were going along
     3        quite nicely; they were doing it in a gradual sort of
     4        way.  Then you and California come in, and New York as
     5        well, and they say, rightly or wrongly, but this is what
     6        is proposed to you:  "Why should the Attorneys General of
     7        Texas and California take credit or some credit for what
     8        we initiated ourselves in the first place?  Therefore, by
     9        one means or another we are going to get our press release
    10        out in our own way first."  That is it.
    11
    12   MR. RAMPTON:  That is absolutely it, my Lord.
    13
    14   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Is that possible?
    15        A.  It is possible.  I prefer not to believe that
    16        McDonald's deliberately engaged in a campaign of deception
    17        not only against the public but against the Attorneys
    18        General of California and Texas.  If is so, that would
    19        lead to an entirely different investigation of an entirely
    20        different nature.  That failure to co-operate and, indeed,
    21        misrepresentations to the Attorney General would be truly
    22        unheard of by any company of national reputation.  It
    23        would not surprise me for some fly-by-night thief who
    24        operates out of the trunk of his car to come in and
    25        misrepresent his intentions to me.
    26
    27   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  The misrepresentation you are talking about
    28        is leading you to believe they could not make a decision
    29        until after the holiday weekend, when on the Thursday
    30        before 4th July they memoed their family that they were
    31        going to make the announcement.  Is that the deception?
    32        A.  Not the only, no, your Lordship.  Also if, indeed,
    33        they had already decided to do this, they need only have
    34        told us that and it would created an entirely different
    35        negotiation.
    36
    37        We are used to working with companies that have taken the
    38        lead and ensuring they get the credit they deserve.  You
    39        saw what the state, I believe the press releases in front
    40        of the court that you saw, of what the State of New York
    41        did with McDonald's to announce McDonald's step forward in
    42        New York.  We believed (and I still believe) that
    43        companies that take the lead deserve the credit for having
    44        taken the lead.
    45
    46        In fact, had McDonald's been straightforward with us from
    47        the "get go", from the moment we wrote to them and called
    48        up and said:  "Gee, we are coming to your meeting but we
    49        are planning to do this already and we will make that
    50        commitment to you", then we would have worked with them, 
    51        in essence, and, in all honesty, to parlay their 
    52        co-operation against the other, so we could say: 
    53         "McDonald's is already doing this; McDonald's has taken
    54        the lead and we would like you all to follow McDonald's
    55        lead".  If McDonald's presumed to the contrary, McDonald's
    56        presumed incorrectly, but McDonald's acting on an
    57        incorrect presumption would have misled us by saying when
    58        we asked what their plans are that their plans are not to
    59        go forward in this area, that they are not willing to make
    60        that commitment.  I find that behaviour sufficiently

Prev Next Index