IN: This is an email
Good Morning, We are short to PGE for 18 MW HLH on both 10/12 and 10/13 at the MidC. The deal number of our sale to PGE is #814886.1 Please see Me, Diana, or Sean if you have questions. Cara

What is the subject?

OUT: We are short at MidC on 10/12 and 10/13
QUESTION: Sir, Before I start, let me introduce myself. My name is Thirumalesh Aedunuthula. I had the pleasure of interning with Enron, this summer. I am a MBA student at Louisiana State University and worked with Enron Tax department. Over the past few weeks, things have changed for Enron at a faster pace than expected/imagined. To some, it is amazing how stock fell from $90 to 26 cents just in a year. People have been attributing lot of things for the fall, from California crises to international deals, without actually taking time to find out what went wrong with Enron . As an intern, I had the opportunity to feel the work culture of Enron. I felt that Enron is making profits not because it is in Energy Industry but because of energetic people like you and Mr.. Jeff Skilling and many others. I strongly believe that greatest asset with Enron is its talent pool, which made the company what it is today. Today, we have a discussion on Enron's Crisis in class. I know, for sure, that many would be interested in voicing their opinion against Enron. I would go to class and take the side of Enron. I might be in minority. But that doesn't matter, as to understand what Enron is, one has to really experience it. Hoping that Enron will really climb back, much faster than its fall.... Yours Truly,
Propose a subject line for this email?
ANS: A mail from an Intern
Scott, Finally, here's the resolution on the Coenergy invoice for April, 1999. Coenergy is telling me that the we need to pay the difference $2.90 vs. $2.74 on 10,000 MMBtu per day. If this is true, please pay the difference of $0.155 to Coenergy on a volume of 10,000 MMBtu per day for April, 1999. If your understanding is different, please let me know, but otherwise please pay the difference. Thank you for your patience, and sorry it took so long to resolve.
Q: What is a potential subject line for this email?
answer: Coenergy
I am out of the office from Monday 26 November returning on Wednesday 28 November. Please contact my assistant Nina Edmonds on 0207 783 6739 if you require urgent assistance. Thanks.
Answer: Out of Office AutoReply: BNP Paribas Master Netting Agreement
Here is an email: Jeff: Thanks again for all of your time and consideration with respect to our con= sideration of Norm Pedersen to join our Firm in Los Angeles. I just wanted= to let you know that we decided it probably did not make sense to pursue t= hings further with Norm. After drilling down even further, it just seemed = like we were going to run into major conflict problems down the road based = upon the CA regulatory proceedings that likely are going to arise and the n= ature of Norm's historical client base. It also would not have been fair t= o Norm to have him join the Firm and then be conflicted out of work that he= had planned to pursue at the Firm. I can't tell you how much I appreciate= your candor as well as your open-mindedness in helping me evaluate the sit= uation. I really felt bad bothering you with this, but I knew you would ha= ve the best insights into the likely direction of the regulatory proceeding= s in CA and I wanted to make sure that I was being fair in evaluating Norm'= s situation and in a position to make a decision based on all of the releva= nt facts. I also want to emphasize emphatically (if it is possible to use = those words together!) that I do not want you to think or feel that you "ni= xed" Norm or anything along those lines; indeed, I feel quite the opposite.= In addition, from the outset, after first talking to Norm and getting a s= ense for the types of business he has been handling and the issues he has b= een pursuing on behalf of his clients, I had felt it was really a non-start= er since the last thing I wanted to do was to have LeBoeuf on the other sid= e from Enron in important regulatory proceedings for the company. It is on= e thing to receive a waiver to represent another company in a negotiated co= mmercial transaction in which Enron is relying on another law firm, but I c= ould not see us pressing a regulatory agenda directly adverse to Enron's in= terests in a proceeding in which Enron was a major participant and which we= knew going into the proceedings at the start that our representation would= be adverse to Enron. As Rick may have told you, there have been some situations where we have be= en adverse to the Company or at least representing clients that did not see= "eye to eye" with Enron on all of the issues. These generally have been s= ituations involving historical client relationships that go back decades wh= ere Enron has itself been using Bracewell, for example, and Rick has been i= ncredibly gracious and understanding in not conflicting us out of those pro= ceedings. Nonetheless, I am trying to do whatever I can to try to eliminat= e or reduce the number of those situations on a going forward basis, althou= gh I know I will not be able to eliminate all of them in light of the size = of our Firm and the diverse nature of its client base. Jeff, I will follow up with you personally, but I just wanted to drop you a= quick note to thank you for the time and thought you devoted to this. I'=
What is a potential subject line for this email?
A: Follow up
QUESTION: Good morning Larry! I just spoke to Tom P. to thank him for the tickets to Rent. I also want to let you know that I really appreciate you cashing in a favor for me! Tahnks so much again, Becky P.S. NYC is great, as you probably know the weather is a bit colder now and it feels great!
Propose a subject line for this email?
ANS:
Tom @ GFI