IN: This is an email
Attached hereto is the certificate that must be signed by each of you in connection with the sale of Houston Pipe Line Company to AEP. As outlined in my earlier e-mail message to each of you, this certificate is your confirmation that you have reviewed the Disclosure Schedules to the Purchase and Sale Agreement and that you have notified Brian Redmond in writing of any additions or corrections that should be made prior to the Closing. The certificate also confirms that you have provided relevant portions of the Disclosure Schedules to the Key Employees listed on Schedule II and asked them to also notify Brian Redmond of any additions that are required. Please execute this certificate where indicated below and return it to Anne Koehler no later than Thursday, May 31, at 12:00 noon. If you have any questions, please contact Anne Koehler at #33448 or Barbara Gray at #36832.

What is the subject?

OUT: URGENT RESPONSE REQUIRED
QUESTION: Robert: Susan Flynn told me that your client is objecting to the deletion of the first part of the first sentence in the "Setoff" language. I just wanted to explain why we are requesting this change. In reviewing our forms during the latter part of 1999, we made a number of changes to both our ISDA Schedule and CSA. One of these changes was the deletion of the preamble language contained in the setoff provision. We concluded that the phrase "Without affecting ...., all payments will be made without setoff ...;provided, however," actually negated the effect of setoff which we WANT to occur UPON THE DESIGNATION OR THE DEEMED DESIGNATION of an Early Termination Date. What purpose do you think the phrase serves if left in the setoff provision? Please feel free to give me a call at 713/853-5620. Thanks. Sara
Propose a subject line for this email?
ANS: Assignmemt/Amendment
From Kevin Presto: Attached is the spreadsheet version of the template we discussed this morning. I have added the additional columns everyone requested. I would now like the business unit leads to fill in the blanks such that we have an initial Power Implementation Plan that can be delivered to Louise on Friday. With respect to East Power (I am out Thursday and Friday), I am delegating to all of my desk heads the responsibility the following: 1) Have all of the forms attached spreadsheet forms complete 2) A product offering sheet is added to the template. Fletch & Dana - Please take the lead on creating the product offering list (physical and financial). My recommendation is we put products out through 03 for all regions (financial and physical). Obviously, the physical products will be contingent on receiving a power marketing license. Cory and Don Baughman - Please take a crack at identifying all of the transmission service agreements we need for the East (Christi has started a list already). The transmission agreement list attached can be used to prioritize or assign commercial people to transmission/pool agreements. It is not correct on the timing under the pools, so don't rely on that column.
Q: What is a potential subject line for this email?
answer: NETCO Implemention Template
As you might recall, York filed two summonses against Enron and Eric Holzer in two separate lawsuits' connected with the parties' dealings in the paper market. The two summonses (as allowed by Pennsylvania law) lacked any information about York's claims against Enron or Mr. Holzer. The Enron defendants removed their suits to federal court. Dechert is the Enron defendants' outside counsel. We have finally received York's complaint detailing its claims against Enron and Mr. Holzer. In a nutshell, York claims that Enron hired Holzer away from York in an effort to steal York's customer base and then, contrary to the parties' agreement and custom in the industry, proceeded to steal customers from York. Specifically, York claims that the only reason it let Holzer out of his non-compete agreement with York is because both Holzer and Enron promised: that they would honor the allegedly established practice in the paper industry preventing competitors from usurping each other's client relationships by selling paper directly to each other's clients, and that York would get new business from Enron. It is York's position that Holzer took confidential and proprietary information from York when he left that company, gave this information to Enron and that Enron and Holzer used this information to wrongfully steal York's customers. York has alleged causes of action against Enron and Holzer for: 1. Theft of trade secrets, 2. Breach of contract (several counts), 3. Tortuous interference with contractual relations, 4. Tortuous interference with prospective contractual relations, 5. Fraudulent inducement, 6. Unfair competition, and 7. Civil conspiracy. My initial impression is that York should be more worried about having agreements with its competitors preventing business solicitation then Enron should be worried about a predatory pricing claim; however, I don't know enough about the facts to have a firm view of the case. We are in the process of getting more information about these claims and I'll update you again after we have talked to our folks about this. In the meantime, please call with any questions or comments.
Answer: York Paper Litigation
Here is an email: Attached is the Active book listing for 10/26/01. If you have any questions please contact Jennifer Velasco, as this message is sent on her behalf. NH
What is a potential subject line for this email?
A: Active listing 10/26/01
QUESTION: Attached is the Enron Americas GasTrading violation memo for August 17, 2001. The Office of the Chairman for Enron Americas is responsible for printing out a hard copy of this memo, signing and returning the hard copy to Chris Abel at 3560f, who will forward it to RAC to obtain their signature. Thank You
Propose a subject line for this email?
ANS:
8/17 Business Unit Natural Gas Violation