Day 123 - 09 May 95 - Page 15
1 these opinions and the text of this leaflet in America?
2 A. I do not think that is true. We would vigorously
3 challenge, and I think I indicated this earlier, any
4 mistruths or any damaging statements made against
5 McDonald's or our good name in the United States, or any
6 other country for that matter, where we operate.
7
8 Q. But when you say "pursue", that does not necessarily mean
9 legal action, does it, if you are not able to do it -----
10
11 MR. RAMPTON: My Lord, once again Mr. Morris is proceeding on a
12 false basis. As your Lordship observes, Mr. Beavers does
13 not offer himself as an expert in American law. Certainly
14 Mr. Morris does not have that status. I probably know more
15 a little bit about it than he does. The fact is, given
16 certain conditions, as a matter of federal law, following
17 decisions of the Supreme Court in the New York Times v
18 Sullivan, McDonald's could sue in the United States.
19
20 MR. JUSTICE BELL: I really do not think you are advancing
21 matters, putting it to Mr. Beavers. It is fair enough to
22 put to him the general allegation you have put to him. He
23 has denied it. Let us see where we go on any legal
24 argument from there in the light of what I find as to the
25 accuracy, or otherwise, of the factual allegations made in
26 the leaflet, and, assuming that you justify some of them,
27 whether comment based on them is fair.
28
29 MS. STEEL: Coming back to who was involved in making the
30 decision to bring the case, was there anybody in America,
31 apart from Mr. Preston, who is head of the UK company when
32 he flies over there, was there anybody in the America
33 Corporation involved in the decision to bring the case?
34 A. I was not privy to the early discussions that took
35 place, who was involved specifically with taking action.
36
37 Q. I think you said on the last occasion that you would try
38 and find out before you came back; you have not made
39 enquiries about it?
40 A. I do not know specifically who was involved originally.
41
42 Q. When you were asked to give evidence about why this
43 particular case was brought, who was it that asked you?
44 A. That asked me?
45
46 Q. Yes, to give evidence about the Corporation's motivation
47 for joining the litigation?
48 A. Our General Council and also our senior vice-president
49 in charge of human resources.
50
51 Q. What are the names of those two people?
52 A. Stan Stein, is the latter.
53
54 Q. What about the former?
55 A. Pardon.
56
57 Q. What about the first.
58 A. The former would be Shelby Yastrow.
59
60 Q. When they asked you to give evidence about the
