EMAIL DETAILS
SUBJECT:
Re: Update on FTA Timing
PRI: NORMAL
FROM:
S
ssingham@ssd.com
DATE:
2010-09-28 21:01:34
MSG_ID:
<1EC0BADDACA7EF4CB61E8D08EDFAA44B02E4771D@wshsrv502.ssd.com>
RECIPIENTS:
TO:
A
aslater@skdknick.com
E
eschwerin@rosemontseneca.com
H
hbiden@rosemontseneca.com
H
hrosen@skdknick.com
N
nmcgarity@skdknick.com
T
tomar@cafusa.com
V
virginia.verdeja@cafusa.com
CONTENT:
TEXT: YES |
HTML: YES
PROCESSED
That's very interesting. I will get back to you on wording shortly. Shanker. -------------------------- Sent using BlackBerry ________________________________ From: Nell McGarity <NMcgarity@skdknick.com> To: Virginia Verdeja (Virginia.Verdeja@cafusa.com) <Virginia.Verdeja@cafusa.com>; Jitendra Tomar (tomar@cafusa.com) <tomar@cafusa.com>; Singham, Shanker A.; hbiden@rosemontseneca.com <hbiden@rosemontseneca.com>; eschwerin@rosemontseneca.com <eschwerin@rosemontseneca.com>; Alex Slater <ASlater@skdknick.com>; Hilary Rosen <HRosen@skdknick.com> Sent: Tue Sep 28 15:50:12 2010 Subject: Update on FTA Timing We just got word back that the FTA could have their letter to CAF USA done by the end of the week. We are continuing to push for them to state that CAF USA is a victim in this situation. Shanker—what would the exact wording of the phrase be that we would need them to include? Please let me know if you have any questions. --Nell
METADATA:
THREAD:
TOPIC:
Update on FTA Timing
INDEX:
ActfTnnUiweWGeJQRaCJHqJyLO8NLAAAdbAa