Here is an email: Attached is a memo outlining my concerns in ENA entering into the above-referenced agreement. I will forward to you a hard copy of the Water Code that I reference in my memo. Please do not forward this memo to CDWR or their consultant. I can prepare a version suitable for distribution to CDWR if you would like. Stacy
What is a potential subject line for this email?
A: CDWR Draft GISB Agreement
Q: Attached is the link that will allow you access to referenced database. Please note, that we have just upgraded the database to add the ISDA definitions, branch offices approved for trading, and market disruption provisions. This information should be inputted for the new master swap agreements on a going forward basis, but we still need to go back and repopulate the data for the existing master swap agreements. Also, FYI, the "See" drop down is our nickname for the name changes and mergers reference. If an item is filled in for that entity it should show you any prior or new names for the counterparty. If there is anyone else who would like the link, please let me know and I will forward it to them. We hope you find the information provided in this database helpful. Link -->
Propose a subject line
A: Financial Trading Agreements Database Link
IN: Gerald, This is a follow-up to my earlier e-mail about the discovery request from John Haswell, 352-376-5226. Perhaps you have already spoken to him. I'm traveling today and tomorrow. On vacation next week. I am in the office Friday and reachable much of the week (when not on an airplane). Call when you can. Bill

Generate a subject line.

OUT: West Florida Discovery
IN: This is an email
Jim and Rick, I will am resigning from Enron and terminating my employment, effective December 31, 2001. At the first of the year, I will be joining the consulting team building RTO West. It has been a great opportunity to work with you here at Enron. I have learned a great deal. Thanks for all you kindnesses to me. Steve Contact Information:

What is the subject?

OUT: Resignation from Enron
QUESTION: Hi All, Attached is the OPM Monthly Hours Survey for November. I need this returned to me no later than this Friday, November 30 at 12 noon. Please do the following: 1.) Please click on your region's / cost center's tab in the attached spreadsheet and enter the appropriate percentages of time that you and your employees spend on each of the tasks listed in the spreadsheet. 2.) Please verify that the Charge Allocations listed in the spreadsheet are correct and that the correct percentages are allocated to each of the trading desks. 3.) Please note that the percentages currently in the spreadsheet are from last month. Please change any of these numbers as is appropriate to reflect October's activities. 4.) Please make any other changes that may be needed regarding employees, titles, etc. Please note that the spreadsheet is located on O:/logistics/management/time allocation/OPM November Totals Thank you so much for your cooperation in this matter. If you have any questions, please let me know. Thanks,
Propose a subject line for this email?
ANS: November OPM
IN: Drew, I wanted you to be aware of a potential dispute with regard to our consultant, Mark Baldwin of IGS. Our consulting agreement with IGS (which has now terminated) provided for a flat fee, plus an incentive fee calculated using the net present value of any contract "identified by IGS" and entered into during the term of the consulting agreement. During the term of the agreement, TW entered into its Gallup Expansion agreement with Southern. IGS is now claiming it brought in the deal and so is entitled to an incentive fee. While it is undisputed that Mark discussed the deal with Southern, Southern was also on Lorraine's list of shippers to contact for Gallup Expansion capacity. Also, the capacity was posted for all to see. So, while Mark can certainly claim he "identified" the deal, he was not alone in doing so. Steve is going to call Mark in response to his letter (after he talks to Lorraine to verify facts). Our thinking is that if we offer IGS some money they will be happy. We would really like to preserve what has been a good working relationship with this consultant. On the other hand, I think we could probably take the position that they are not entitled to any incentive fee. However, since the contract is silent as to whether IGS has to be the only party bringing in the deal in order to qualify for the incentive fee, this position is not as strong as I'd like it to be, and IGS might sue TW. The amount in dispute could be as much as $200,000, depending on what rate we use in calculating net present value. If you have any problem with our offering to pay part of the incentive fee to IGS, let me know. I think it will be very important for Steve not to admit that Mark helped in any way in getting the deal -- just in case they do

Generate a subject line.

OUT:
contract issue