This is the content of an email: Something for us to talk about during our next staff meeting. There are three projects which have significant cash flow problems and thus= difficulties in meeting debt obligations: these are: SECLP, Panama and Gaz= a. In the past, as I suppose we have done in Dabhol, we have taken the pos= ition that we would not inject cash into these companies and would be prepa= red to face a default and possible acceleration of the loans. SECLP has be= en the biggest issue/problem. Panama is much less (a few million of floati= ng of our receivables from the company) would be sufficient to meet the cas= h crunch in April of this year. Note that, in Panama, the debt is fully gu= aranteed by the government and is non-recoursed to the operating company, B= LM. In the past, we have discussed letting the debt default, which would c= ause the bank to potentially seek complete payment and acceleration from th= e GoPanama. The reason: the vast majority of BLM's problems stem from acti= ons taken by the regulator that have effectively amended our PPA's with pri= vate parties; those actions resulted in significant loss of revenues, which= although today have stopped or have been limited, have left a "mark" on th= e company's liquidity position. =20 Now the question is: come April of 2002, should any of our actions in Panam= a or decisions related thereto (which we would have otherwise taken or made= ) be affected in any way by either the proposed merger or an effort by Enro= n to preserve efforts to re-establish investor/creditor confidence? The sa= me could go for SECLP and Gaza. This is simply an overall "guidance" question. Let's take it up during our= staff meeting next week, if that's ok with you. Many thanks, Mariella
What was the subject line for this email?
Confidential - Decision tree on projects