QUESTION: Well, given the impressive results of Friday's game, I suppose I should've taken the bet...I mean I knew we were good, but I didn't realize we were THAT good. Watching the game I couldn't help but remember some comments made not too long ago about this being a building season and that the Horns would be a force to be reckoned with come the next two seasons - - I love it when I'm right. With an increasingly more confident sophomore quarterback leading the charge and three (count them three) very mature freshman receivers all eager to make big plays, not to mention last year's top quarterback recruit Chance Mock serving as a back-up, next season promises to be something to watch. My condolences on your prospects not looking quite as bright . Hope you had a nice Thanksgiving and good luck helping all of your Aggie co-workers through this trying time. Susan (Oh and Chip, I'd store the Gig'em sweater-vest away for the next 360 days or so if you want to avoid any post-game ridicule...in a round about way you are an "Ag" man now.)
Propose a subject line for this email?
ANS: Hind-sight's 20/20

QUESTION: All, attached is a redline of Master Netting Agreement against the previous Cook c draft and the proposed Collateral Annex. Please review and provide your comments to me by first thing Tuesday morning. Major issues for resolution: 1. We have determined that we should file on cash collateral in Canada. Peter Keohane is reviewing the forms and processes for such, including how to determine and establish priority with respect to same. Peter will coordinate with Credit concerning the mechanics of accomplishing the filings. 2. Due to the continued concern by some counsel in respect of mutuality issues for setoff and netted settlement (another form of setoff) "aggregate liability clauses" set forth in 3a and 3b have been included for our consideration. We must come to a consensus as to whether this language/concept should/must be included. If the answer is yes, is the language included the best tactic? 3. Mary Perkins is reviewing LC matters with banks to be sure the modified format set forth in this draft is satisfactory. Timing Objective: Our objective is to provide everyone another draft on Tuesday and finalize on Wednesday. This will require a conference call sometime Monday afternoon. Carol, Rick, David, Peter and Elizabeth please provide Esmeralda Gonzalez, my assistant, at 713 345-7621 with your Monday afternoon availability and she will set a time and advise you. For those of you who had a prior draft of the Collateral Annex, I could not get this redlined for some reason, I apologize. Carol, since I am out Friday will you please call Cadwalader and be sure they received this. Further, will you ask them to review the NY choice of law provision in light of Canada cash collateral issue. Thank you. David and Rick, in your review please give special attention to the calculation mechanisms utilized for the determination of the Collateral Requirement. Esmeralda, after you have determined availability, please send email to Carol, Elizabeth, Rick Antonoff, David Mitchell and Peter Keohane advising of the time (Houston time). We will call other parties and do not need a call in number.
Propose a subject line for this email?
ANS: Master Netting Agreement

QUESTION: With regard to the Commission's limitations on the right of first refusal, Order 637 provides for grandfathering of discounted long-term contracts that are now subject to ROFR. The Commission's rationale was that grandfathering gives all shippers notice of the new limitation and the opportunity to re-execute current contracts. The TW Commercial Group has asked whether we should challenge the grandfathering of existing contracts. In limiting the right of first refusal, the Commission has expressly acknowledged that if a customer is truly captive and has no alternatives for service, it is likely that its contract will be at the maximum rate. Shippers that are not captive and have alternatives in the marketplace do not need the protection of ROFR, and the pipeline should be able to negotiate with other interested shippers upon expiration of the contract. In light of these conclusions, there should be no reason to grandfather the ROFR rights of shippers under existing discounted contracts. Such shippers would not be harmed by removal of the right immediately upon the effective date of a pipeline's tariff filing to limit the right of first refusal (assuming the service contract incorporates tariff terms on an "as amended" basis). Consistent with the Commission's order, it would not be unfair to make these shippers compete with others for the capacity upon expiration of the contract.
Propose a subject line for this email?
ANS:
Order 637: TW Comment on Rehearing Request