Subject: Re: Follow-up on FTA
From: "Virginia Verdeja" <[email-masked]>
To: "Hilary Rosen" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "Singham, Shanker A." <[email-masked]>, "Nell McGarity" <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>, "Alex Slater" <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2010 12:02:46 -0400

Perfect. Let me know place and time. We can do it in my office if you  
want.

On Sep 21, 2010, at 11:37 AM, Hilary Rosen <[email-masked]> wrote:

> We need a meeting. And we need to include Hunter and Eric.  I could  
> meet tomorrow morning.
>
>
>
> Hilary Rosen | SKDKnickerbocker
>
> 202.464.6900 (O) | 202.320.2711 (C) | [email-masked]
>
> 1818 N Street NW, Suite 450, Washington DC 20036
>
>
>
> From: Singham, Shanker A. [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2010 11:15 AM
> To: Nell McGarity
> Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; Hilary Rosen;  
> Alex Slater
> Subject: RE: Follow-up on FTA
>
>
>
> Nell: FTA did not call. I spoke to Jayme on another matter, and he  
> responded with an e-mail noting that on this matter they were  
> drafting their response to both the Request and the further letter  
> we sent them on Monday.  I am continuing to try to get a sense of  
> their timing now, but I suspect that they won't want to give that  
> away any more than they have. Jayme has probably already gone too  
> far (from FTA's perspective) in letting me know that they are  
> drafting their response. That could mean a lot of different things.  
> It could be denial, or it could be something else. It's a regulatory  
> process.  If it is a denial, we don't have a regulatory avenue after  
> that, other than full judicial review.
>
>
>
> The most important thing right now is to do what we can to slow them  
> down.  I understand that there are a lot of political tracks moving  
> to achieve this goal so that is good. I would suggest from our  
> perspective that any Congressional letters/statements or other  
> political support should ensure that FTA takes due time to  
> understand CAF USA's response to their Report, and does what they  
> pointedly did not do in the investigation which is to fully and  
> properly "get our perspective".  At some point before the final  
> decision on reconsideration, we ought to be given the opportunity to  
> respond to any reactions they have to our factual and legal  
> statements.
>
>
>
> FYI -- Dorval misstepped in our meeting when he said that he  
> admitted that FTA did not reach out to us because they felt that  
> they did not need our perspective in the Investigation. Ultimately  
> that could be costly and would be exhibit A in any kind of judicial  
> review. Shanker.
>
> From: Nell McGarity [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2010 10:47 AM
> To: Singham, Shanker A.
> Cc: Virginia Verdeja ([email-masked]); Jitendra Tomar ([email-masked] 
> ); Hilary Rosen; Alex Slater
> Subject: Follow-up on FTA
>
> Hi Shanker,
>
>
>
> Tomar told me that the FTA called you and that they are preparing  
> their response. I wanted to follow-up with you to see if you got a  
> sense of their timing or the outcome so that we can begin to put  
> together our response.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Nell
>