Per my conv. w/Tanya, the above master should be inactived (which I have already done in Lotus Notes) and taken off the executed Master List. All the Dynegy Trading is done out of Dynegy Marketing and Trade. Thanks.
Answer: Dynegy Power Corp.
EPMI is entering into more and more transactions that are settled against a floating, published index price. Our physical contract does not currently provide for what happens if the published source is not available or is otherwise materially changed. Under ISDA for financial trading, this is addressed as a Market Disruption Event (MDE). Under ENA's standard contract for financial trading, there is included as a MDE "the imposition of trading limits on the range within which the price of the commodity may fluctuate". What this may mean is that if a cap is imposed on power prices, then in lieu of using the capped price to determine the floating price, you would be required (under ISDA) to eventually get brokers to determine what the price would have been without the cap. I want to add language to our physical contracts that addresses material changes/disappearance of the published prices that would mirror the financial trading terms and doubt whether we would want to make the imposition of a cap on power prices a MDE. If you treat the imposition of a cap (say in CA of prices to $500 or in NEPOOL to $1,000) as a MDE, then we would be required to secure quotes as to what the price would have been without the cap each time that a pricing date trades at the cap level. This only seems fraught with litigation risk to me. Alternatively, if caps are not deemed a MDE, then you would always settle against the published prices, even if they are "artificially" determined after the trade was entered into. While caps are not appealing, I think it would be better to not have the imposition of caps be considered a MDE. I have spoken with the financial trading group and they will follow our lead on this. So, depending upon what you both think, we will make sure that financial and physical power are treated the same on this issue. Thanks for your thoughts.
Answer: Index Transactions
Our firm has been retained by a prominent global energy company with more than $26 billion in assets. The company reaches into more than 50 countries, producing energy, transporting energy, marketing energy and providing energy services. In the United States, the company provides electric service to approximately two million customers; operates interstate pipelines that deliver natural gas to various regions of the country; and are leading marketers of electricity, natural gas and natural gas liquids. Our client seeks a lawyer with an understanding of generation plants and energy trading and marketing experience. As a respected practitioner in this field, your cooperation in suggesting or referring appropriate candidates to us for our client's consideration would be most appreciated. President Bush has requested that Americans return to business in order to show the world that although saddened and angered by these senseless acts of terrorism, Americans are not beaten. Accordingly, Prescott Legal Search is resuming recruiting efforts on behalf of our clients. This return to business in no way diminishes the terrible tragedy that has befallen our nation, the victims and their families. Thank you for your time and attention to this request.
Answer: Request for Assistance
Bill, I think you are about to become my new best friend! We have another long standing counterparty we cannot get approved on EnronOnline because we cannot get the counterparty set up in GCP. The Counterparty sent in a Password Application styled: Koch Industries, Inc., acting through its Koch Hydrocarbon Company Division. (Which also happens to be the same styling on the Master Swap Agreement we have in place with this Counterparty.) They way I understand it, GCP has the two following Counterparties already set up: (1) Koch Industries, Inc., and (2) Koch Hydrocarbon Company Division. The EnronOnline Team has been trained to never set up a company as a division, to always send the Password Application back to the Counterparty and try to get the Counerparty to resubmit the application with the legal incorporated name as part of the counterparty name, which they sucessfully did in this instance, but now we cannot get the counterparty set up in GCP. Can you help us?!! !
Answer:
Another Division Problem