|
|
Enron Mail |
Here is a first stab at a q&a type doc based on the start Amy and Jeanie ma=
de last week =20 =20 Neil -----Original Message-----=20 From: Oxley, David=20 Sent: Sun 12/30/2001 5:02 PM=20 To: Curless, Amanda; Davies, Neil; Cashion, Tana; Slone, Jeanie; Cash, Mich= elle; Fitzpatrick, Amy=20 Cc:=20 Subject: RE: I am concerned about Networks and NETCO I suggest we talk first. Call me on the following cell phone 713-962-1490. = The difficulty I suspect is that people are understandably uncertain of the= unknown, but in 10 days we will have everything nailed down. Additionally,= people, it would appear, seem to be making certain assumptions about the e= state which I believe are false. I can't see the estate continuing to spons= or green cards, or in maintaining the cash balance plan, at least in the fo= rm of the past, etc., etc., Bankruptcy isn't pleasant. =20 I would however, like to avoid selling NETCO at the estate's expense, as di= fficult as this may be. =20 The main points we need to communicate and build around would be; =20 Salary - Everyone we talked to has indicated a willingness to keep them at = least at current levels Job responsibility - This is entirely Jay and Jenny's call. If they see a p= erson as necessary to do a different job, they need to explain that. Typica= lly, people should be transferring in exactly the same position as the curr= ent have, that would be the whole point of why NETCO needs them. Clearly NE= TCO will be a subsidiary of a large bank and as such will not have quite th= e same prominence it enjoyed with Enron pre-bankruptcy. Unfortunately, that= is lost forever. Bonus - Plan two main counter parties have agreed is more generous than Enr= on's current arrangement, if we perform. Retention - Two main counter parties have agreed in principle to a pool of = cash to be paid to the 700 people in NETCO who didn't get anything in Nov. = This would be paid as soon as practical after signing in exchange for a com= mitment for them to stay for 3 months or so otherwise they will have to rep= ay it. Benefits - These will differ depending on who buys us. However, it each cas= e they have comparable benefits but they are obviously different. On the sp= ecific point of pension plan, they have plans that require some vesting per= iod but again the 2 main counter parties have agreed that they will take En= ron service into account (i.e. if they have 5 years with Enron and their pl= an requires 5 years service to vest they will vest immediately, but obvious= ly will get just their first years contribution). Now is someone is 4 years= in with Enron, I recognise this is not a great answer, but has to be contr= asted with how long there is a position in the estate for them (i.e. is the= re a job for another 12 months). The last point concentrates too much on ne= gative aspects of what may happen to estate, so I would prefer to avoid too= much innuendo here. VISA's - we have a plan to switch all H1b visa's within 24 hours. This is a= pparently straight forward and Neil and Tim Callahan and I have discussed l= ogistics with one of the counter-parties in some detail. On L1's, these wil= l take up to 3 weeks to switch to H1's. Of the 70 people identified who hav= e VISA's only about 7 or 8 have L1's. Tindall and Foster tell us this will = not pose a problem and again we have discussed this with the one of the cou= nter-parties who have agreed our approach. These people should avoid travel= ing outside US in this 3 weeks, but according to Tindall and Foster will be= legit. Green Cards - No easy solution. Essentially these will have to start from s= cratch. The counter parties have not at this stage told us whether they wil= l support new applications. However, bear in mind I do not believe the Enro= n estate will continue with green cards, although this has not been officia= lly proclaimed. Expat Terms - These will probably be honored by the new company, although e= ach counter-party has indicated a desire to "normalise" the terms with thos= e of their own company, over time. Employment Agreements - We have identified 179 across NETCO. The estate pla= ns to transfer these to the buyer, but it is clear that each prospective bu= yer does not readily accept this as a term of the deal. As such my working = assumption is that the offer letters each NETCO ee receives circa Jan 12, w= ill supercede all previous terms including employment agreements, that indi= viduals may have had. Specifically, I expect that the new employer will not= honor future equity, cash retention, target bonus or severance provisions = that may be in people contracts. Clearly, there may be some negotiation her= e. =20 Now, we have other things like Title's, PRC, Promotion dates, Salary review= s, project bonuses, All employee stock option programs, etc., to figure out= , but I think it unlikely that these will be unpleasant surprises, after al= l the new employer will be probably one of the 5 biggest investments banks = in the world and we almost certainly benchmarked our processes on them over= the last 10 years. There may even be an ability to transfer (after a while= to a different part of their organisation, if they have an internal postin= g process). =20 As to process from here, we want to identify those who DON"T want to go and= why. I want to avoid ANYONE receiving an "offer" to switch and NOT accepti= ng it. As I mention above, many of the terms of the "offer" are unlikely to= be a huge surprise, and if people have genuine concerns I want to switch t= hem out now for someone who does want to go. We should have 100% acceptance= , not because of bullying or ultimatum's but because we figure out early wh= o had concerns, solving them or switching them out for someone else. =20 Jeanie/Amy/Michelle/Neil - looks like we need new updated talking points fo= r all. Lets get them out Weds. =20 David -----Original Message----- From: Curless, Amanda=20 Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2001 3:12 PM To: Oxley, David; Davies, Neil; Cashion, Tana; Slone, Jeanie Subject: RE: I am getting heat from IT..... Importance: High David, I talked with Jay on Friday because I was concerned that Steve Stock and Zh= iyong Wei, two senior IT guys, had concerns about Netco and were asking me = why it wouldn't be better to stay on the Estate. My whole purpose in discus= sing this with Jay was to make sure he was aware of their feelings. However= , it seems that some of this miscommunication was and has become an exager= ration. =20 I attended Beth Perlman's floor meeting when she communciated the differenc= e between the Estate and Netco. She said that Jay Webb would be talking wit= h everyone that had been identified to go to Netco and that she would be ta= lking with individuals that would be staying on with the Estate. She did te= ll the employees that if they were identified to go to Netco and had a prob= lem with this then they should talk with her and HR. She also said upon dea= l closure if the Netco employees receive offers and they turn them down it = would be a voluntary resignation. She urged them to please talk with us no= w if there are any concerns. She also said that we have requested to offer = same salaries, to bridge service, and to pay retention bonuses at the time = of deal closure. In addition, she communicated that we have limited informa= tion but we would update the group when more became available.=20 =20 It was never communicated that if they went to Netco they would lose their = visas, etc. I have received a lot of questions and concerns about visas but= my response is that we are working on this and we have it covered. I have = also heard a lot of concerns on the Cash Balance Plan and my response is th= at we have asked to bridge employees service but we will not know until dea= l closure. I have stressed that Netco wants to keep intellectual capital a= nd will most likely make a fair offer to keep employees whole.=20 =20 In talking with employees identified to go to Netco their biggest concerns = are 1) they are not guranteed same benefits, salary, bonus, etc and they fe= el like they will be bullied into accepting the Netco offer and 2)they are = on visas and in the green card process and don't want to start the process = over because they don't have enough time left on their visa. I have talked = to Neil Davies about the second concern and we are trying to come up with s= ome options. I have talked with the concerned employees about what we reque= sted but I am not sure how else to alleviate their concerns.=20 =20 I will call Jay first thing Monday morning and discuss how we want to corre= ct this miscommunication. Please keep me updated if you hear anything else.= Thanks! =20 Mandy =20 =20 -----Original Message-----=20 From: Oxley, David=20 Sent: Fri 12/28/2001 6:55 PM=20 To: Davies, Neil; Cashion, Tana; Slone, Jeanie; Curless, Amanda=20 Cc:=20 Subject: I am getting heat from IT..... ....Essentially I am guessing that what we asked them to communicate re NET= CO and what they did may be two rather different things. While the 1078 mil= es (I counted them - it broke up boredom of drive) between me picking up vo= icemails here and what is actually transpiring, it sounds like we a mis-com= munication mess in IT. People are suggesting that NETCO guys were told, they had no choice but to = go and if they didn't they would lose there visa, etc., etc., This was not our intention clearly. We (I thought) made it clear that we wo= uld initially work on basis that people could choose to stay with estate bu= t we'd like to talk with them about why. If it's VISA's we have that nailed= , they shouldn't be concerned. If it's getting "offered a lower paid job" t= hat simply isn't in the plans of the NETCO transaction, unless Beth, Jay an= d Jenny are wanting to do that before the transaction (can't think why they= would). Bottom-line, people will transfer to a SOLVENT, Aplus credit rated= company, on the same salary on perform whatever job Jay and Jenny ask them= to. The benefits will switch, but we already know that counter parties ben= efits are fairly generous even by our standards, and they will agree to bri= dge service for vesting in pension et al. Bonus plan should be very good (c= urrent proposals are slightly better than Enron's). Titles, promotions, sto= ck awards and base pay raises we aren't sure about just yet, but my working= assumption is they will follow Enron previous practice until agreed otherw= ise. On retention, we have requested a pool of retention dollars for all those p= eople who didn't receive anything from the estate in Nov and we plan for th= is to be paid to employees in the form of a cash "retention/bonus" payment = on or as soon after deal closure as we can. As you guys know these dollars = approximate the annual bonus numbers they might otherwise have received if = Enron was solvent. Help me manage this please.=20 David
|