|
|
Enron Mail |
Sally,
We have been able to work with Legal and Tax to impact the way our trading has been set up in London and Tokyo to increase our control of the business and simplify the requirements for support. In London, for Equity Trading we will be trading as ECT Investments Inc. (the same entity as in Houston). We will have mirror books in the UK as in Houston (e.g. Energy and Energy - London). We have put a service agreement in place setting up a Enron Investment Services Ltd. (uk entity) who will trade on our behalf as an agent. This keeps ENA from establishing a presence for Equity Trading in the UK Tax authority. We pay the UK entity, our agent, a service fee and deduct the service fee on ECT Investment's taxes as an expense. Controls are increased because all the books and reporting remains consolidated into one entity. In Tokyo, we have started a Rate & Currency Trading Desk. We initially were told by tax that we would have to trade in the name of Enron Japan. This would require separate bank accounts, separate counterparty agreements and much more coordination to control. We and the trader worked with Tax so they understood the difficulties that this would present. Also, Japan did not want to assurme the funding requirements for this activity with their office and wanted it segregated. This further understanding caused Tax to push further to gather other advise from outside counsel operating in the Tokyo market. We are and will be able to trade as ENA. Therefore, the same bank accounts and ISDAs may be utilized. All activity, positions and VAR continues to be netted for ENA. Additionally our counterparties can trade with a trusted, established entity, ENA, and we get to net, limiting exposure. These are two cases where we can impact the structure of the business to increase controls and our level of support. In both cases, joint and successful cooperation occurred between trading, tax, legal and operations. Sheila
|