Problem: BODY: Hi, I need your help. I would like you guys to prioritize the "first 10" and the "second 10" firms that we would like to change our existing trading agreements with to allow all of us to use ConfirmLogic. I would like this process to go forward even if the counterparty has not yet signed up for the module. To my mind, the legal change simply gives us both the option (and perhaps the preference, but not the obligation) to use the module to serve as a legal confirmation. Please let me know if there is anything I can do to help speed up the process. As I understand it, only Sempra currently has proposed changes in front of them. I would like us to have proposed changes in front of the top 20 clients by September 20. Many thanks, Tom
======
A: SUBJECT: Contract Amendments for ConfirmLogic

Problem: BODY: Jessica, Am I outstanding an expense reimb. from you? I seemed to be approx. $6000.00 past due and I have my check from the trading floor. Please advise. Many Thanks, Liz
======
A: SUBJECT: Outstanding Expenses

Problem: BODY: Kim - Attached is a workbook with tabs reflecting the August 2001 Palo Alto calculation, Enron calculation and the manual invoice we sent to Palo Alto. I will fax you the Enron Unify invoice and supply verification. We met with Anne Bike to go over the deals and the Palo Alto calculation prior to forwarding the manual invoice. We are now in the process of trying to get the deal correct in Sitara and Unity. Please review and let me know when you are ready to discuss and how you want to go forward.
======
A:
SUBJECT: Palo Alto Invoice