A outside source suggested to me that I, as a stockholder, should E-Mail my senator and request the government's help to bail out Enron. After all they bailed out Chrysler, the airlines, and many other companies and are helping Afghan. Enron was the 7th largest company in the US. The government should help Enron while we restructure. Can Enron E-Mail all employees and stockholders and request they E-Mail their Senator &/or Congressman and suggest the above.
Answer: Restructuring Enron
The following reports have been waiting for your approval for more than 4 days. Please review. Owner: Luiz T Maurer Report Name: LM 100301 Days In Mgr. Queue: 7
Answer: Expense Reports Awaiting Your Approval
A newly revised rule (Subpart HH) has just been implemented by the EPA concerning curde oil tanks with a daily throughput of equal to or greater than 500 bbls. per day. If there is any tank within your teams area of responsiblity which equals or exceeds the 500 bbls. per day throughput criteria, please provide to me the following: tank name/serial number tank size average daily throughput Thanks for your help in this matter....
Answer: EOTT Crude Oil Tanks
Tanya: There's no short answer with these people! I think we are fine with their setoff language (part A only) because the NDP always has the option to permit setoff to other agreements between the parties as to amounts payable by the Payee to the Payer (where the Payer owes money under the ISDA to the Payee). So here's my recommendation: (1) Call your friend Andre and hear what he has to say. He has some kind of suggestion about Part (B) and limiting the NDP's payment to the DP to be based upon satisfaction that "nondisputed" amounts having been paid by the DP. Will he also raise the "other agreements" issue here? Not a clue. (2) If Cargill leaves part A in tact and we agree to change part B, I'M FINE. (I'm fine without part B, actually) (3) The potential problem is that Cargill and ENA view part A differently, right off the bat. I think Cargill is wrong because they don't read part A as applying to "other agreements between the parties". But Cargill proposed part A and it DOES apply to "other agreememts between the parties." I don't want to start off on the wrong foot so I'm sure I'll have to discuss this again with Marty. Thanks for your continued help. Sara
Answer:
Cargill, Incorporated - the final SETOFF discussion