Hollywood Reporter Esq. Interview with FTAC's Attorneys

About Stewart and Stewart
Read about the firm’s qualifications and see why FTAC chose Stewart and Stewart.

8 most asked questions about the section 301 (a) petition are answered by FTAC’s Trade Attorneys in this video interview.

Memo: Rebuttal to Arguments Against Adoption of Proposed Resolution
March 11th 2005,

From From Alan M. Dunn and William A. Fennell of the Washington DC-based trade law firm Stewart & Stewart.

Rebuttal to the MPAA’s arguments against the adoption of the proposed resolution by the Burbank City Council. This rebuttal was written to show the Staff and Council Members of the Burbank City Council that the MPAA’s statements are flawed and from a perspective of “Trade Law” how the MPAA has misrepresented itself. In doing so, the memo strengthens FTAC’s arguments for the Burbank City Councils support of a 301a petition.

Memo
December 29th 2003,
From Alan M. Dunn and William A. Fennell of the Washington DC-based trade law firm Stewart & Stewart. A brief 5 point explanation of a 301a Trade action and it's intended outcome. The Memo is a very concise explanation of FTAC's plan to end the "Outsourcing" (runaway production) of American film workers jobs.

This set of three memos gives an overview of why FTAC has chosen the 301a petition.
1st Memo
May 28th 2002
From Alan M. Dunn and William A. Fennell of the Washington DC-based trade law firm Stewart & Stewart.
This 6 page memo first explains the initial findings of the law firm and their reasons why the Canadian subsidy programs are inconsistent with the WTO. Second it explains the differences between a 301a and 301b petition. Third it explains the issue of standing in a 701 countervailing duty action.
2nd Memo
February 28th 2003
From William A. Fennell of the Washington DC-based trade law firm Stewart & Stewart.
This 2 page memo explains the 6 step process of both countries in WTO actionable case.
3rd Memo
October 25th 2002
From William A. Fennell of the Washington DC-based trade law firm Stewart & Stewart.
This memo explains the legal basis for FTAC's 301a petition.
This 3 page memo demonstrates why the Canadian Subsidy programs are inconsistent with the WTO and why FTAC has an actionable case.

MPAA
February 13th 2004
MPAA calls on USTR to use Special 301.
A press release from Jack Valenti of the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) http://www.mpaa.org/jack
This 2 page document is from the MPAA's website.
It details how they advocate the use of and how strong of a tool the "Special 301" is.
"Special 301 is an effective and powerful tool that the U.S. Government can leverage with foreign countries to level the playing field,” said Valenti.
May 1st 2003
MPA Commends USTR "Special 301"report
From Phuong Yokitis of the Motion Picture Association (MPA) http://www.mpaa.org/MPAAPress/index.htm
This 2 page document details the Power of the Trade Sanctions of a "Special 301" and it ability to stop countries who violate our trade agreements.

Memo - April 23rd 2004,
From Alan M. Dunn and William A. Fennell of the Washington DC-based trade law firm Stewart & Stewart.
This 3 page memo shows that a "Special 301", that is used by the MPAA, is the same as a "Section 301". (301a petition)
FTAC is using the same trade law "The Section 301" (301a petition) to end the outsourcing of our American film workers jobs. (runaway production)
A "Special 301" (MPAA) and a "301a petition" (FTAC) relies upon the same "identical" Section 301 for any potential enforcement actions that may be taken to address the problems.