Enron Mail

From:jeff.dasovich@enron.com
To:kkupiecki@arpartners.com
Subject:Re: Agro - Q3,4
Cc:christine.piesco@oracle.com, dwindham@uclink4.berkeley.edu, jcjcal02@aol.com,jdasovic@enron.com, jjackson@haas.berkeley.edu
Bcc:christine.piesco@oracle.com, dwindham@uclink4.berkeley.edu, jcjcal02@aol.com,jdasovic@enron.com, jjackson@haas.berkeley.edu
Date:Sat, 18 Nov 2000 14:05:00 -0800 (PST)

I'm adding my two cents. Here's 3, but not 4. Few things.

1) I considered that everything was "material." That reasonable?

2) Dylan, I struggled with the ban on preservatives, but ultimately decided
it was unusual, not extraordinary, since the book sez that any write down of
inventory is unusual, as opposed to extra. But a case for extra can still,
be made I think.

3) I did not include the 1994 litigation expense associated with the ban,
since it seems to me that it's merely an expense that they would have taken
in 1994, as opposed to a "potential litigation outcome" that they'd make an
allowance for---I could be wrong, though.

4) Finally, I assumed that the depreciation-related gain was already included
in the 1995 "income from continuing operations" number, and consequently
included it as a footnote on my spreadsheet, rather than make it an explicit
line item in the income statement.

I'll look at Kim's #4 and if I have any comments, I'll add them to hers and
circulate.

Best,
Jeff





Kimberly Kupiecki <kkupiecki@arpartners.com<
11/18/2000 06:54 PM

To: dwindham@uclink4.berkeley.edu
cc: jjackson@haas.berkeley.edu, jdasovic@enron.com, jcjcal02@aol.com,
christine.piesco@oracle.com
Subject: Agro - Q3,4


Questions

1. Litigation - how should we account for the 1994 bill of 500,000 in 1994
- I assume this was not accounted for in the 1994 income statement - we
could include a note on pro forma numbers for the 1994 statement or we
could just include this cost in 1995 - I am including it in the 1995
recalculated income statement, but I don't think this is totally accurate.

Thoughts anyone?

2. In the text, page 354, Other gains or losses from the sale or
abandonment of PP&E used in a business is not supposed to be reported under
extraordinary items. This means the two sites Agro sold for $750,000
(after tax gain) should not be counted under extraordinary items. In this
case - we could 1) assume this is accounted for already in the 9.5 million
number given to us or 2) add it in after "income from continuing
operations" and before "discontinued operations." I went with option 2.

Let me know if you have any issues with this treatment.

3. Are we supposed to do anything with the 30,411,380 of retained
earnings? I did not include pay out of dividends in the income statement.

Cheers,
- Agro.doc
- Agro.xls

Kimberly Kupiecki
Director
A&R Partners
kkupiecki@arpartners.com
(650) 762 2800 main
(650) 762 2825 direct
fax (650) 762 2801