This is the content of an email: We will be upgrading the EnronOnline website tonight to include new functionalitysuch as Floating the Todays Transaction Window. As our special group of select and distinguished users, you guys are going to get it before anyone else does. This release has been tested and we are not expecting any problems, but if you encounter difficulties with your new website as a result of this upgrade, please call the EnronOnline help desk. Additionally we will have an EnronOnline person circulating on the floor to assist with any difficulties. You will not have to do anything to receive the upgrade - it will happen automatically at your login tomorrow.

Subject: IMPORTANT New Website Release

This is the content of an email: OK, the fun continues. We need to assign EOL products to traders. Torrey sent a file (Netco\controls\Trader-Book template (US Gas)_EOL new books) with all products and the old book assignments. We need to get with the traders today and get these split out.....many will stay the same as before. Also, when physical deals are done, will all risk types go to the same desk or will one person be managing the index separately. ex. the west desk used to book all index to Grigsby's book. I have told Dawn that all risk types will go to that trader's book but if index needs to be changed let me know. Thanks

Subject: EOL products

This is the content of an email: David: Grant has faxed to me Crestar's comments to the PA and ETA. As I explained to Grant, some of them are legal and some of them, I think, will require input from you and perhaps can be resolved in a call to them. I am going to have this delivered to you with my thoughts on some of the comments assuming that we couldn't talk them into accepting these docs as is. Please let me know when convenient how best to proceed. carol

Subject: Crestar energy

This is the content of an email: Rhett: You may recall a few weeks ago I asked you about some language that one of our counterparties wanted as an amendment to the term "Indemnifiable Tax". Another counterparty, Deutsche Bank, has requested the following which I think is very similar to what we were looking at before: Notwithstanding the foregoing, "IndemnifiableTax" also means any Tax imposed by reasons of a Change in Tax Law by a government or taxing authority of a Relevant Jurisdiction of the payer, unless the payee is incorporated, organized, managed and controlled or considered to have its seat in such jurisdiction, or is acting for purposes of this Agreement through a branch or office located in such jurisdiction. In the ISDA Users' guide, they explain that the effect of this language is to eliminate the payee's risk of bearing new taxes imposed by the payer's jurisdiction even if the payee's activities in such jurisdiction is the basis for such taxes. (except if the circumstances in the definition occur). It thus results in the payer having to gross up for such taxes. Do you think that we can or should accept this?
Subject: ISDA Tax Issue