IN: This is an email
Hi Chris, As promised, I have phoned the IRS today and spoken with a representative who was able to tell me that the original request for the trace on your cheque on September 19 was rejected by their system on October 22. He told me that he couldn't tell me why because the IRS aren't sure either why the system rejected it. As such, a new request for a trace was placed on October 22 and now the IRS are asking us to wait until December 17. The IRS told me that you should receive a letter called a 510C letter from them. I have changed your address with the IRS from Texas to Calgary. I would ask that when you receive this letter to fax a copy to my attention at 781-1825 for our files. I know that this probably isn't the news you were hoping to hear, but at least it's some news. I have made a note to follow up with the IRS again on December 17 and hopefully by then they will have good news in time for the holidays! Again, don't hesitate to contact either Judy or myself should you hear anything further from the IRS, receive your cheque(!) or have any other questions or concerns. Kind regards,

What is the subject?

OUT: IRS refund cheque--update

IN: This is an email
I just looked at the first couple of documents attached and wanted to make sure the second item listed in them works. Is everyone comfortable that the volume should be submitted in megawatts and then divided in half to produce megawatt hours? I think it works but I had to work through it to get there - it wasn't immediately obvious to me.

What is the subject?

OUT: Australiann Power Product Long Form Decsriptions

IN: This is an email
Mark, We sent Chisholm an electronic copy of the LOI and received some comments. in paragraph 2, Chisholm would like to see something other than obligation, as we never state what is our 'current obligation.' I guess the word 'obligation' raises an eyebrow. We explained that the NDA and its conditions would still be in place. Is there a way to tweak the language to more clearly state this and not use 'obligation'? of course the non-solicitation clause was another point of clarification. Currently, Chisholm is using students to develop an internal system and they have been working with other vendors. Therefore, this clause will not work. So we have discussed putting in a Notification clause in that Chisholm will notify us and keep us informed about the status of other vendors. Perhaps something that would read "Chisholm agrees that it will notify Enron if and when it decides to enter into a formal agreement with any third party vendor etc." Give me a call if this doesn't make sense. Thanks. Make It A Great Day!! Lorie E. Hernandez Specialist - E-Commerce Transaction Development

What is the subject?

OUT:
Comments from Chisholm