[mail to:catherine.m.karol@gm.com]
Sent: Monday, June 22, 2009 7:04 PM
To: Koles, Kathryn
Subject:
Kathryn –
I got your voicemail indicating that you had finished your reviewed of the issue ad that we discussed briefly earlier today. As I mentioned earlier, the ad has already run at least one time on MSBC on Friday, June 19 at 11:49am EDT.
GM’s concern with ad that can be found at www.protestgm-chrysler.com is that it inaccurately suggests that GM and Chrysler have taken identical positions with regard to product defect and porduct liability issues. Of greatest concern to us is the insinuation that “defects would no longer be reported let alone fixed” by GM. This is certainly not the case for GM, as is noted elsewhere in several other places on the website. A letter from theSenate Commerce Committee to Fritz Henderson that is described on the website can be viewed in the link below — it acknowledges that GM has already agreed to assume those responsibilities in the new company.
We may have further issues to discuss regarding this ad. but I thought it might be useful to get that one if frontof your prior to our further conversation. Thanks again for the opportunity to weigh in.
Regards-
Kate
313.667.6186 (o)
313.378.6535 (c)
__________________
Here’s a link to the letter to from the Senate Commerce Committee.
http://commerce.senate.gov/public/_files/FINALLettertoHendersonandGM.pdf
Can we take bets on the over/under for minutes until RF receives a Cease and Desist with regards to posting this particular document?
As always, TTAC has the best inside sources.
it acknowledges that GM has already agreed to assume those responsibilities in the new company.
Where in that letter does it acknowledge that GM has agreed to ANYTHING? The relevant line from the letter:
The New GM has a continued responsibility to repair and recall vehicles manufactures by the old GM.
greenb1ood: I wonder if the lawyers are going to demand a legalese block be included in all emails (internal AND external) at GM that the correspondence is only between the two parties and is not to be reproduced without express consent of the legal department. Or do those fancy boilerplates even hold up in a court of law anymore?
I’m always amused by those e-mail signature disclaimers that say something to the effect of, “This e-mail is intended to be confidential between parties xxx and yyy. If you have received it in error, you are required to delete it.” I’m no lawyer, but I believe that just because you can demand whatever you want in an e-mail, that doesn’t obligate me to comply.
All this really shows is that GM didn’t like the ad in question. I sort of assumed that was obvious.