IN: Dear Dr. Lay: As a stockholder, I am as upset as you, most Enron employees and other co-shareholders are given Enron's recent performance due to questionable management by scrupulous officers at Enron. As an ex-employee, I have seen many signs of a major collapse, given the fact that Enron's values (such as Respect, Integrity, Communicatons and Excellence) were simply not followed by Enron's officers and senior members of management. There are examples, such as in Panama, Palestine, and the Dominican Republic. One bad deal after the other with questionable economics and accounting to make each deal look good for the personal benefit of one individual in charge. It is about time that you get rid of these individuals and bring Enron back to what you have built over the years to be a successful company. Regards,

Generate a subject line.

OUT: stockholder comments

IN: By now you have probably heard about three memos that discuss questionable trading strategies at Enron involving the California market. The memos were brought to the Board's attention several days ago, and the Board voted on Sunday to waive the attorney-client privilege with respect to those documents. On Monday, we turned the memos over to the Federal Regulatory Energy Commission and other appropriate agencies. There are likely to be a number of investigations into this issue, and as we have with all current investigations, we will cooperate fully with these efforts. If you should be contacted in regard to this matter, I encourage you to contact Bob Williams in our legal group at 713-345-2402. However, while these investigations continue to look into the past, our focus must be on the future and on moving this company forward. Thanks for your continued efforts,

Generate a subject line.

OUT: Memos Discussing California Market

IN: In cleaning up e:mails, I can across this one from Sheila. Is this one of the corrections that was made to the June information? Any update on July? Thanks.

Generate a subject line.

OUT: June Operating Report

IN: Below is a summary of the surety bond issues that I believe we need to resolve in order to feel comfortable accepting it as a form of collateral to secure a counterparty's obligations with respect to physical power purchase and sale transactions: 1. Determine whether an issuer can refuse to honor a draw made under a surety bond if after issuance, it determines that the bond was issued in violation of the appleton statute. What type of legal comfort should we receive from the issuer at the outset to get comfortable that the bond was validly issued and is enforceable against such issuer? 2. Determine the proper minimum credit rating(s) that should apply to the issuer. 3. In the form of bond that we were given, the "Now Therefore" language in the third paragraph is not acceptable. Determine what can be said in its place to establish the necessary linkage back to the transaction covered by the Confirmation. 4. Make sure that the bond can be drawn down no matter what type of Event of Default occurs, even if such event is not related to the transaction that the bond references. The Notice of Claim language needs to be written more generically to accommodate this. 5. Does credit need a "pre-bankruptcy" trigger that would require Reliant to convert all outstanding bonds into LC's or cash collateral? If so, what would this trigger be? Let me know if you have any additional issues. I will be discussing some of these with our outside counsel shortly.

Generate a subject line.

OUT:
Surety Bond Issues