Guys: currently the system is designed to match upstreams and downstreams for buy/sells in contract exchange, and the scheduler would then recreate these paths in Unify. In my opinion this does not guarantee data integrity between the systems. Carrie and I have scheduled a meeting for 1:30 pm today in 21c2 to discuss. Please feel free to attend and give your opinions.
Q: What is a potential subject line for this email?
answer: "Auto-Pathing" Buy/Sells
I want to thank everyone for their hard work during these trying times. Lots of our efforts in the past building systems, procedures and infrastructure pay off in times like these. Feedback from both Citibank and JPM/Chase and Enron's Board members has been very positive relative to RAC. Congratulations to all. On another note I want to caution everyone in the group from making negative statements in the presence of ours and other groups, especially more junior members of these groups. Because they come from RAC they are not considered idle commentary and can be, and have been, damaging to morale to these people. We all speculate about the state of affairs and it is a good stress relief but we can not be a part of morale reducing behavior. Things are not back to normal but they are improving. Upon receipt of commitment from banks, hopefully later today or early tomorrow, our short term issues should be resolved. Lots of activities are underway to address medium term and long term solutions. In the mean time, keep smiling. Rick
Q: What is a potential subject line for this email?
answer: Memo to RAC
David: We need your and your firms' assistance regarding various forward contract issues that we continually seem to face as we develop new trading products and as we deal with our existing contracts in a distressed counterparty or bankruptcy situation. I thought that it would be helpful to summarize what we need done before we talk to you. Here are the areas that we need your advice on: 1. Obtaining Forward Contract Status a. All requirements deals b. bundled service contracts c. can only forward contract merchants terminate? If enter into single output contracts, does that affect our status as a forward contract merchant? (ewg, QF issues) d. review of Polaroid contract e. Review of EES retail contracts in general f. spot masters - are they forward contracts? 2. Termination Payments - is it considered a pre-petition or post-petition claim? 3. Utility Status - is any Enron entity a utility under the Code? 4. Swaps - can some of our "physical" contracts be recharacterized as swaps? 5. Collateral other than cash and LC's - can it be liquidated without relief from the stay? Ed Essandoh, an attorney with EES, will be faxing to you a copy of the Energy Management Agreement that EES has with Polaroid Corporation. We would like for you to review it and give us your thoughts on whether it would qualify as a forward contract. Ed's direct dial number is 713-345-8939. Can you contact my assistant, Sandy Haldeman, to schedule some time for Ed and I to talk to you about the above? Sandy's direct dial number is 713-345-3879. I will be out of pocket most of tomorrow morning but feel free to call Ed directly with respect to the Polaroid contract. We have assumed that your firm will not have a conflict on this but if this is a problem, please let us know.
Q: What is a potential subject line for this email?
answer: Forward Contract Advice
Gentlemen - Following the Dabhol dictate that "bad news is good news," Dabhol is getting some good news this week. As reported in the press, DPC did receive a two-page letter from MSEB purporting to rescind the PPA with immediate effect because DPC materially misrepresented the capabilities of the power plant (i.e., 6 hour actual ramp-up time vs. 3 hour ramp-up schedule in the PPA). However, the letter goes on to state that MSEB is "agreeable to continue the present arrangement of power and payment until disputes are resolved by the appropriate forum." We are not entirely sure what this last part means and are asking MSEB for clarification. Obviously, this letter is quite a buttress to our already-delivered PTN contending that MSEB has evidenced an intention not to be bound by the PPA. While MSEB's letter seems to state that they will still honor some aspects of the PPA, the letter adds that "payments would be subject to adjustments on the basis of determination of reasonable compensation and quantum meruit by a competent authority." We hear rumors that MSEB will approach the Maharasthra Energy Regulatory Commission (MERC) for a "how much should we pay DPC" determination. If they do so and MERC accepts jurisdiction, this would help our expropriation, political force majeure and default arguments. DPC seems to have managed to avoid a construction contractor termination in May by agreeing to extend the required completion date for Block B by 9 days. While this action does not have long-term benefits to the project, I believe that it was a considerable sign of good faith that DPC is trying to give the lenders some time to assess whether they want to begin curing project agreement defaults on an ongoing basis. Bruce
Q: What is a potential subject line for this email?
answer:
Dabhol -- A Brief Legal Update