EMAIL DETAILS

Agreed. Thanks, Hilary.

Tomorrow morning is unfortunately difficult for Hunter and me. Would anytime tomorrow afternoon work?


Eric D. Schwerin
Rosemont Seneca Partners, LLC
1010 Wisconsin Ave., NW
Suite 705
Washington, DC 20007
(202) 333-1880
eschwerin@rosemontseneca.com
P Consider the environment before printing this email.

On Sep 21, 2010, at 11:37 AM, Hilary Rosen 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) | HRosen@SKDKnick.com
1818 N Street NW, Suite 450, Washington DC 20036

From: Singham, Shanker A. [mailto:SSingham@ssd.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2010 11:15 AM
To: Nell McGarity
Cc: Virginia.Verdeja@cafusa.com; tomar@cafusa.com; 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:NMcgarity@skdknick.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2010 10:47 AM
To: Singham, Shanker A.
Cc: Virginia Verdeja (Virginia.Verdeja@cafusa.com); Jitendra Tomar (tomar@cafusa.com); 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