I am currently responsible for the following companies: 20R 20Q 890 1572 In preparing our monthly tax accrual closing entries, I have noticed that the MTM activity on each of the above referenced companies does not roll between the Income Statement and the Balance Sheet. There are PRM assets on each of the companies (except 20R) and there is unrealized revenue on each of the companies (except 1572). However, the change in activity on the balance sheet does not equal the income that is recognized in the 4200-0000 account. I have attached a spreadsheet detailing the B/S accounts that I am looking at, as well as the amounts booked in account 4200-0000 on each company. There is a difference of 15,886,556 that I cannot explain. For tax purposes, I am currently reversing the amounts related to the balance sheet accounts, but I need to know where the offset is for the 15,886,556 appearing on the income statement. Please let me know if you have any information concerning this issue. Thank you.
Answer: MTM Income
We have received the following executed assignments: 1. Assignment and Assumption Agreement dated as of September 28, 2001 among Johns Manville Corporation and Johns Manville International, Inc. and ENA, whereby Johns Manville Corporation assigned Deal No. VH0047.1 to Johns Manville International, Inc. 2. Assignment and Assumption Agreement dated as of September 28, 2001 among Johns Manville International Group, Inc. and Johns Manville International, Inc. and ENA, whereby Johns Manville International Group, Inc. assigned Deal No. QP0373.1 to Johns Manville International, Inc. Copies will be distributed.
Answer: Johns Manville
Leslie, On the attached list they have PPL Electric Utilties Corporation & PPL Energy Plus as amended and new, but you didn't respond to them. I have no record on PPL Electric Utilities, so can you treat that as a new counterparty even though it says amended. Thanks.
Answer: EOL Credit Responses 07/24/00
Rob: I am faxing to you our comments to the latest drafts of Schedules. Our credit person has agreed to make the MAC trigger as an additional Termination Event so long as (1) we limit the trigger to the S&P rating; (2) we provide a cure concept that the non-Affected Party controls subject to a cap; and (3) we remove the MAC trigger from the collateral threshold definition. I have included some proposed language. Also, with respect to the partnership agreement, I seem to recall that you were reluctant to send us a copy as we traditionally review LP agreements as a part of our due diligence. Is that still the case? I like what you did on the Termination Event but we need some comfort that you cannot alter or narrow the GP's liability that is provided by statute. Could you please give that some thought and we can talk further about it? Tomorrow is bad for me to talk but the rest of the week after tomorrow looks good if you have some time. Carol
Answer:
Comments