Here is an email: FYI - We will NOT be confirming hourly trades for generators or any other counterparties until further notice. The logistics of the process are still being worked out. In the meantime, keep checking "No Confirm" on all deals. Bloomberg deals are another story. They do get confirmed everyday. However, the people in the Confirms group know this inherently and do not need the added validation of a "Yes Confirm" checkmark. What they do need is a clue as to which deals have been done with Bloomberg, and the best way to convey this is by typing "Bloomberg" next to the word "Broker" in your Deal Entry screen. If this is unclear, please let me know. Thanks,
What is a potential subject line for this email?
A: NEWS YOU NEED! PLEASE READ
Q: Phil - Per our conversation, Enron has successfully procured sufficient UCAP for January 2002 through NYISO's Monthly Auction. The total dollar amount for that Obligation is $219,189. Enron posted $750,000 in collateral to participate in the Monthly UCAP Auction on Dec-07. Enron is requesting the difference between what was posted and the cost of our Obligation wired back to Enron's Account; that difference is $530,811. It is understood that Enron is obliged to re-post collateral come the following UCAP Auction in early January for February's Obligation. Wade - Can you please e-mail Phil Gootee and Mike Mackles from NYISO Credit Dep't wiring instruction for the $530,811. Thank you. Please call with any questions.
Propose a subject line
A: Money Back to Enron from NYISO from ICAP residual
IN: Louise- I'd like to talk to about my past and future efforts in NY in relation to NETCO. I will give you a call today. Kind Regards,

Generate a subject line.

OUT: NY office
IN: This is an email
Dear Michelle: On Tuesday, October 23, I met with Christina Solomon, counsel for Doug Miller. The elusive Liz Miller failed to attend, having been called at the last minute into an all-day meeting. We have tentatively agreed that we will meet next week. Despite Liz Miller's absence, I believe that the meeting was productive. I learned the following information: 1. Doug Miller claims that there are three power grids that are unrelated, that he worked only in the East for ENA and works only in Texas for Calpine. Thus, he claims that his duties and activities do not overlap in any way with those he performed for ENA. 2. Calpine did not know of Miller's non-compete at the time Miller was hired because he believed it had expired. He brought it to Calpine's attention immediately upon being contacted by ENA. 3. Christina argued, as she did in the answer and counterclaim, that the non-compete agreement was fatally overbroad, as Miller never had any duties involving the majority of the activities from which the non-compete purports to bar him. In response, I told her the following: 1. We do not accept Miller's assertion that simply working in another region will sufficiently insulate our trade secrets, since strategies may not be confined to a single region. 2. I pointed out to her that Miller's contract very clearly states that the non-compete extends three months after employment even if the contract term has expired. I also pointed out that he was reminded of his non-compete orally several times by ENA personnel upon his resignation. 3. I explained that the non-compete had been enforced on many occasions and that it was carefully crafted with an eye to protecting the many trade secrets to which Miller may have had access. I argued that strategies concerning one aspect of ENA's business might impact many other areas and that, as such, the non-compete was not overly broad. [She asked what trade secrets we were trying to protect!! I, of course, declined to answer.] Despite the fact that I believe that these facts are clearly stated in our petition, she confessed to not having viewed the situation from the "trade secret perspective." We ended the meeting with her stating that Calpine and Miller were both interested in trying to resolve the matter and that she welcomes a proposal from us. While she did not elaborate, I believe that they would entertain a suggestion of some sort of limitation on his activities for some short period of time. Please let me have your thoughts about this matter. Thanks. Best regards,

What is the subject?

OUT: Enron v. Miller
QUESTION: Hey, AC! How are things going for you? Liking your new freedom, wild girl? I hope your having fun. I'm sure missing you on Entex. I'm already feeling the heat from TM. With the cold spell and the change in weather forecasts, I have to re-evaluate Entex everyday. But, that's the way it always is over here. I've been meaning to e-mail you, but I always remember after I leave the office. Anyway, let me know how it's going. Later, D
Propose a subject line for this email?
ANS: Howdy
IN: We have previously told the TX PUC Staff we will be posting required collateral of $100,000 by the end of the month (as required by Rule 25.107(f)) in order to maintain EES certification. The requirement is that we maintain "unused cash resources of at least $100,000, which will allow the REP to incur in Texas up to $250,000 in total monthly billings from TDUs." Staff says we can meet this requirement by posting the $$ to an account of our choice. We just need to notify them where the money is and state the money is for the purpose of this rule.

Generate a subject line.

OUT:
TX Collateral posting