Problem: BODY: Today' s integration test went very well. During testing we identified the following: additional system dependencies additional application steps problem areas related to being in a production environment We accomplished a lot this week and could not have done it without everyone's cooperation and hard work. Thank You! We will update the scripts, schedule and contact list, by end of day, to reflect any changes identified during today's 'Dry Run'. The new versions will be located in \O:\_Dropbox\IntegrationTestScripts <file://\O:\_Dropbox\IntegrationTestScripts> Tomorrow we will publish a contact number and tentative schedule for Sunday's Integration Test. Just a reminder, for those individuals who participated in the testing, please clean up (zero out, un-officialize, etc. ), do not kill the deal, the following deals in Sitara, TAGG, EnPower, Unify PM, Unify VM, Unify Settlements, CAS and ????? : Sitara: 1193642, 1193649 TAGG: YM5545.1, YM5709.1 EnPower: 896012, 896014, 896015 Thank You,
======
A: SUBJECT: Today's Integration Test

Problem: BODY: Attached is the current form of the assignment agreement. I'm awaiting final approval from Finance, but I think we should get this in front of GE. Ben, do you or Chris want to handle this, or shall I? Kay
======
A: SUBJECT: Assignment and assumption agreement

Problem: BODY: Jack: Enclosed is a new draft of the Schedules marked against the previous draft. I believe that this draft responds to most of the issues raised in your e-mails. Just a few additional thoughts: 1. Since we will be redoing all of the existing confirms to refer to this Master, I did not change the language that states that conflicts between the Confirms and the Agreement are resolved in favor of the Confirm. I think that the language as written works. 2. On the setoff language, when we are the Non-Defaulting Party, we can only pull in other agreements between our affiliates and inland so I don't see how this language would impact any agreements between ENA and guaranty Bank unless Inland is the Non-Defaulting party. 3. With respect to Disruption Fallbacks, our view is that if the Confirm specifies a Fallback reference Price that after Postponement, you would use that price if available. I think that the language works as drafted. 4. On cash collateral, the Qualified institution concept only applies when the non-posting party is a Defaulting party or has a Credit rating below the threshold. Otherwise the non-posting party can hold the collateral and do whatever it wants to with it. Your are correct that in practice this cash gets commingled with corporate funds and swept into the party's bank account but there is no requirement taht it work that way. We look forward to having a call with your group next week. Please e-mail me with some days and times so that I can alert our people. thanks.
======
A:
SUBJECT: New Draft