Thanks Greg. Here is footnote 1

1 While Complainants refer to TPL’s bankruptcy filing on this point, Complainants “vehemently dispute” that this

filing undermines TPL’s domestic industry investments. (See Mot. Mem. at 6-7.) Although the Administrative Law

Judge takes no position at this time as to the underlying merits of Complainants’ domestic industry case,

Complainants’ arguments that the bankruptcy has no impact does undermine the persuasiveness of Complainants’

arguments somewhat here.

The Administrative Law Judge is also mindful of instances in which a change of circumstances in an

investigation would warrant a change in position. See e.g., Certain Devicesfor Mobile Data Communication, Inv.

No. 337~TA—809, Order No. 41 (U.S.I.T.C., 2012) (allowing certain amendments to the Complaint to account for a

corporate sale). However, those cases are distinguishable from this one because here Complainants made

unequivocal remarks and foreclosed discovery early in the Investigation, as noted above, and then failed to timely

seek to formally change their stance by way of appropriate and prompt motions to amend discovery and the

allegations in the Complaint. It is the “too little, too late” approach that the Administrative Law Judge finds

prejudices the other parties in the case under the circumstances presented here.

(emphasis by me)