Stephanie Chen at p. 2. Accordingly, the transaction threatened to reduce opportunities for diverse businesses. Testimony of Stephanie Chen at p. 4. discussions between Greenlining and Frontier in reaching the MOU are confidential, the Greenlining MOU does contain a number of specific agreements regarding supplier diversity. MOU at pp. 1-3. Greenlining initially argued As discussed above, the Decision found Because The that mitigation measures were that the Greenlining MOU contained Greenlining Institute generally necessary. Protest at commitments by Frontier that were did not timely file the p. 11-12. This included necessary to render the transaction in the request for concerns that for the public interest. Decision at p. 63. The compensation, the transaction to serve the public Decision noted that Greenlining Commission did not ”[t]he interest, community MOU commits Frontier to work with reach the question of engagement would be critical Greenlining for a minimum of three whether the and the combined company years to maximize diversity Greenlining Institute would have to build in…philanthropy.” Decision at p. 54. made substantial relationships with the contributions to communities it served. D.15-12-005. Testimony of Stephanie Chen at p. 6. While discussions between Greenlining and Frontier in reaching the MOU are confidential, the Greenlining MOU does contain a number of specific agreements regarding community engagement, including philanthropic and local engagement activities, including volunteer efforts by Frontier’s employees. MOU at p. 3. Greenlining argued that the As discussed above, the Decision found Because The merger could harm that the Greenlining MOU contained Greenlining Institute
Stephanie Chen at p. 2. Accordingly, the transaction threatened to reduce opportunities for diverse businesses. Testimony of Stephanie Chen at p. 4. discussions between Greenlining and Frontier in reaching the MOU are confidential, the Greenlining MOU does contain a number of specific agreements regarding supplier diversity. MOU at pp. 1-3. Greenlining initially argued that mitigation measures were generally necessary. Protest at p. 11-12. This included concerns that for the transaction to serve the public interest, community engagement would be critical and the combined company would have to build relationships with the communities it served. Testimony of Stephanie Chen at p. 6. While discussions between Greenlining and Frontier in reaching the MOU are confidential, the Greenlining MOU does contain a number of specific agreements regarding community engagement, including philanthropic and local engagement activities, including volunteer efforts by Frontier’s employees. MOU at p. 3. As discussed above, the Decision found that the Greenlining MOU contained commitments by Frontier that were necessary to render the transaction in the public interest. Decision at p. 63. The Decision noted that ”[t]he Greenlining MOU commits Frontier to work with Greenlining for a minimum of three years to maximize diversity in…philanthropy.” Decision at p. 54. Because The Greenlining Institute did not timely file the request for compensation, the Commission did not reach the question of whether the Greenlining Institute made substantial contributions to D.15-12-005. Greenlining argued that the merger could harm As discussed above, the Decision found that the Greenlining MOU contained Because The Greenlining Institute
168951265.docx