Here is an email: Here are my notes from today's call. As with Monday, I've focused on getting them out as quickly as possible rather than taking extra time to re-organize them by subject. Enron's business has been grouped into three buckets: Core, Non-core, and Under Review. Core: Wholesale energy business in North America and Europe, retail energy, pipelines Non-core: Broadband, water, and international assets (i.e. EGAS). Enron has approx. $8Bn in investments in these assets, and they have produced 'dismal' returns. Enron will be exiting these businesses and will attempt to wind them up in an orderly fashion. An aggressive divestiture program has been set in motion for these assets. Under Review: EGM, EIM. These businesses are being closely examined to determine whether they have a reasonable chance of long-term viability. Required resource levels are being carefully studied. Following review, Enron will move the different portions of these businesses to core or non-core as the analysis dictates. Approximately $800MM of asset sales are under contract and expected to close in the fourth quarter. These include a gas LDC in Brazil, EcoElectrica, and our Indian E&P assets. Enron is in active pursuit of an additional private equity infusion of $500MM-1Bn. Given the current environment, raising equity in the public markets would be 'inefficient', McMahon says. Short-term liquidity is provided by the $3Bn of credit drawn upon a few weeks ago, the $1Bn of new debt, and the $1.5Bn equity infusion from Dynegy. Longer-term, the proceeds from the sale of PGE will provide liquidity. Asset sales over the next year will be used to pay down debt. McMahon described the major off-balance-sheet vehicles: Marlin was set up to hold Azurix assets. It was initially capitalized with $950MM of 144a debt and $125MM of equity (raised from Enron and institutional investors). The debt is supported by the equity and by Azurix' assets. Enron is obligated to cover any deficit at the time the debt becomes due on 3/17/03 (the 'Enron topup' obligation). The 3/17/03 date is accelerated in the event that Enron is rated below-investment-grade by any one of the three major agencies. The primary asset of Marlin is Wessex Water. As long as Wessex is worth at least $2.6Bn, there will be no Enron topup required. If we take a 25% haircut to present book value, Enron will have to provide $650MM in consideration upon retirement of the debt. This $650MM would hit Enron cash, income, and equity balances. Osprey contains energy-related assets and 'other assets'. It was initially capitalized with $2.4Bn of 144a debt and $220MM in equity (ENE and institutionals). As with Marlin, the entity is an asset-backed structure with an Enron topup guarantee. The debt is supported by a) the assets; b) $1Bn of convertible preferred ENE (convertible into 50MM shares of ENE common); and c) additional ENE common as needed for topup. Assuming the same 25% hypothetical haircut to current book value, Enron would have to deliver approx. $600MM of topup funds--which would hit ENE cash, income, and equity. The debt must be retired by 9/17/02, with the same cut-to-junk early trigger provision as Marlin.
What is a potential subject line for this email?
A: Highlights from ENE Analyst Conference Call 11/14
Q: Business&Finance: ESB ownership of network is questioned - Competition Authority says separation of national grid from core company does not go far enough. Arthur Beesley reports 11/13/2000 Irish Times 18 Copyright (C) 2000 Irish Times; Source: World Reporter (TM) The Competition Authority has questioned the ESB's ownership of the electricity network in the newly deregulated power market. In a paper submitted to the Department of Public Enterprise, the body said the separation of the ESB's National Grid operation from the core company did not go far enough to ensure fair competition. It said arguments in favour of the ESB retaining the transmission and distribution system ignored the 'overwhelming conclusion' that a generation company which owns such assets 'will naturally favour itself' at the expense of customers and reliability. The paper has not been published yet. It is believed to state, however, that the ESB's retention of its 'non-competitive' transmission and distribution assets and its 'competitive' electricity generation business was unwise from a competition perspective. The National Grid, which controls when individual power stations feed electricity into the network, was separated from the ESB when 27 per cent of the market was opened last February. In theory, this meant the ESB could not favour its own generation stations over more efficient competitors when deciding which plant to switch on and off as demand for power fluctuates. But the authority's response to the Statutory Instrument behind the separation - which renamed the National Grid as Eirgrid - said more should be done to ensure the market operates fairly. The paper said: 'Some argue that as long as there is an independent operator of the underlying transmission system, ownership of the transmission system can remain in the hands of an upstream generation operator. 'In accordance with this line of argument, the shift of operational control of electricity transmission to Eirgrid would mean that discrimination in dispatch [of power] and other operations would not be possible. However, the Competition Authority considers that this argument ignores the overwhelming conclusion that the generation company that owns the transmission lines will naturally favour itself.' The Statutory Instrument followed complex talks, which led to an agreement between the ESB, its trade unions and the Minister for Public Enterprise, Ms O'Rourke. When Eirgrid was formed, the ESB retained ownership and responsibility to develop and maintain the high-voltage national transmission system and the low-voltage local distribution network. The authority says these, too, should be separated from the ESB to ensure the competitive market functions fairly, according to a person familiar with its paper. This would ensure equal access to the power network and an objective, transparent, non-discriminatory treatment of all electricity generators in the market, it said. The paper argues the ESB has an incentive to allocate as many costs as possible to the operation of the transmission and distribution system. Folder Name: Utilities, Electric: Deregulation Relevance Score on Scale of 100: 100
Propose a subject line
A: EBS News
IN: The ICE experienced a momentary connection loss to all users. The system i= s now reconnected. If you are experiencing any problem, please log out and= back in to rectify. We apologize for the inconvenience. IntercontinentalExchange = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Generate a subject line.

OUT: *** Notice ***
IN: This is an email
What time do you get home from school. If it's before 5 could you stop by the Theater on the Square box office and get tickets? Cameron said that she and Scott want tickets, too. It's going to sell out (if it ain't already sold out), so we should probably do it quickly. I love you.

What is the subject?

OUT: Sam Shepard Play
IN: Here, at last, is the email response to the OT questions. I haven't had a chance to study it, but I am sending it "hot off the press" upon receipt by me. Let's discuss if there are any problems. Michelle

Generate a subject line.

OUT:
Overtime Calculations