The Local newsletter is your free, daily guide to life in Colorado. For locals, by locals. Sign up today!
It’s 1:30 pm. The courtroom is filled to capacity. I’m in the media courtroom where I have a view of everything except the jury. Colleen Conry is doing redirect examination of Robin Szeliga. [Note: This is not a transcript. It is just my notes of the testimony as fast as I can type them. Spelling errors will be corrected tonight. I will update every fifteen minutes or so, so either check back or refresh the page.] Conry: Directs Robin to the June Monthly Dashboard prepared July 26, 2001. Let’s look at the June revenue the way we did the March revenue. What are the non-recurring revenue numbers? The total was $629 million. When did Qwest first release the non-recurring revenue numbers to the public? August 15, 2001 Why did you plead guilty? Objection, sustained. Conry: Mr. Stern asked you if Nacchio and Woodruff were optimistic. Mr. Stern asked you about the Qwest performance in 2000 and the fact it made its numbers 2000. I recall you didn’t agree there was a reason for optimism. Robin: I took exception to his statement there was reason for optimism based upon the results of 2000.
Was there reason for optimism in 2000? Some optimism, but not that much because it was very difficult for us to make our numbers in 2000. Mr. Stern asked you your view on whether investors can rely on projections for a five year period. I’d like to ask you whether they could rely on projections for a shorter period of time? To some extent, yes. Mr. Stern asked you about government contracts. In your experience at Qwest, have you ever seen contracts that were classified built into financial projections? Yes, they were included by code names. There were initiative sheets, and a particular unit that might have such a classified contract would put it on the sheet. Going to the Sept 10, 2001 press release. In fact, on Seopt 10, 2001, when Qwest took down its guidance for the second half of 2001 and 2002, it said it did so based on adverse conditions in the economy. Is that a full or fair reason? No, it’s not full. It’s omitting that the growth of the products that we needed to take off at the beginning of the year didn’t do so and were backed up by IRU’s. The market had shrunk. No further questions. Stern wants to re-cross. Judge says he will allow limited re-cross on two areas of Conry’s re-direct: 1. The classified contracts being closed. 2. That the IRU’s contributed to the lowering of the guidance. 1:53 pm Stern: You had some information about classified contracts that were booked. You don’t have information about classified contracts that hadn’t yet been booked or placed on the initiative sheets. True. You’re not suggesting that you knew all the contracts Nacchio was referring to, are you? No. He did tell you there were things he couldn’t discuss with you? Yes. Second area: Stern directs her to her sworn testimony before a subcommittee of Congress. Did you say to this committee under oath that the reason you couldn’t make the targets was that you had made a assumption that the economy was expanding and that turned out to be wrong? She doesn’t really admit or deny that. After a few tries, Stern gets her congressional testimony admitted into evidence so the jury can read it. Stern is done with re-cross, Szeliga is excused. New thread for Greg Casey.
Give One Year of 5280 for just $16.