IN: This is an email
* You signed up to receive this mailing at GravityDirect.net. * Get your favorite DVD for FREE! Join today and Shipping and Handling is on us. HURRY -- this special offer won't last long.

What is the subject?

OUT: NEW OFFER! 1 FREE DVD and FREE Shipping and Handling!
QUESTION: After meeting with Jesus Melendrez this morning, meeting with the Crescendo folks for a few minutes this afternoon (they were in the office in connection with other matters) and talking with the Crescendo lawyer on the phone, I called Chris Sullivan to let him know that his letter to Jim Derrick had been referred to me for handling. I started my conversation with Mr. Sullivan by telling him that I had no substantive knowledge about this matter and that I had talked with the Crescendo folks briefly about his letter and expected that they would respond to the substantive points he raised "sooner rather than later". Mr. Sullivan was not thrilled with this response indicating that he already knew what Crescendo had to say on the subject. In fact, this was an interesting comment since, at other times during our call, he mentioned that he had been waiting for a reply from Crescendo for months. He then went on for some time about how he had been talking to Crescendo and others about his helium rights for up to 2 years (his time estimates changed as he continued to talk) and that he believed the project was scheduled to go on line in early November and still had not received a satisfactory response from Crescendo. He also mentioned a call to Keith Pruitt at Enron in February and that he hadn't heard back from him either. It sounded to me like Mr. Sullivan wanted Enron to support his position and intervene on his behalf against Crescendo based only on his letter. In any event, Mr. Sullivan again threatened to involve the government and go forward with litigation to prevent helium from being wasted. I reiterated that I could not discuss his substantive concerns, that I was not yet up to speed on this matter and that we would look into it. I received from Jesus copies of the correspondence between Crescendo and Mr. Sullivan as well as a legal opinion on Crescendo's obligations, if any, to Mr. Sullivan. Also included in the information I received were copies of the letters exchanged between Crescendo and the BLM on this matter. I am in the process of reviewing these and expect to talk to Crescendo's attorney this weekend. In the meantime, he is working on a response to the substantive points raised in Sullivan's letter. Please call with any questions or comments.
Propose a subject line for this email?
ANS: Crescendo
Hi Randy, Here's what you missed. My personal preference is to not spend the money to check out the licensing issues at this point since I don't have the outside counsel doing anything now. When John called me last week and asked the question I gave him that opinion, and I had assumed that it had been communicated to you. Sorry about that! Kay
Q: What is a potential subject line for this email?
answer: Co Op City
Please confirm that Beck's comments nos 1 and 6 are acceptable for the loi. I would include in this email, but I don't have an electronic version with me. Reagan, if you have an electronic version, could you forward it to me? Thanks,
Answer: Clarksdale/Beck's comments
Here is an email: Please see the attached Alberta PPA presenation. Please make review and if you have any modifications, please get with John as soon as possible. Kim Hillis x30681
What is a potential subject line for this email?
A: Alberta PPA
QUESTION: Dee: Hope you had a good vacation. I sent a copy of the Enron North America Corp. ISDA Schedule/CSA to Rod Nelson who is the credit person in London reviewing credit for ECL. Rod can be reached at 011-44-20-7783-5275, I need to send the Enron Corp. Schedule to you.
Propose a subject line for this email?
ANS:
Enron Credit Limited ("ECL")