|
|
Enron Mail |
-----Original Message----- From: Jim Mccartney <jw1000mac@yahoo.com<@ENRON [mailto:IMCEANOTES-Jim+20Mccartney+20+3Cjw1000mac+40yahoo+2Ecom+3E+40ENRON@ENRON.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2001 4:25 PM To: Walls Jr., Rob Cc: bruce.lundstrom.@enron.com Subject: dpc CONFIDENTIAL, PRIVILEDGED ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATION...rob and bruce. i read yesterday the erc of 1998 yesterday as well as the indian solicitors opinions, and most of the regs. i am out of town for a couple of days and i just wanted to give you my reactions....1. i feel that we would not prevail on our jurisdiction arguments were we before a u.s. court. the law is too well established against us here. i am coming from having been involved in both the contract modification point in various fpc/ferc cases including the order 380 cases that overturned all the pipeline contracts and the gulf warranty/texas eastern case that disregarded the arbitration provision of the gulf warranty contract in favor of fpc review. so i confess, i would be hard to convince. 2. we are positing a rather narrow interpretation of the dispute resolution authority, e.g. no jurisdiction for disputes between "utilities". will the h.c. interpret the mrc for all future cases as withholding jurisdiction or disputes between utilities? the point of all this negativism is that we consider trying to avoid the risk of an up or down decision by the h.c. (obviously, we may not be able to do so and some probably will not wish to do so), suggesting alternatively to the court that it e.g. permit the ppa arbitration to go forward, deferring to a future date the jurisdiction determination. in one of our discussions chris mentioned this as a strategy. there are no doubt other imaginative options. i, of course, defer to chris and the indian counsel, who believe merc has no jurisdiction, but this regluatory issue is new to them and old to u.s. public service companies and me, so i would question them thoroughly to be sure they have focussed on the risks. an adverse finding by merc could effect our political risk coverage. we might quietly ask our coverage expert how an adverse merc finding on the misrep issue would effect our protection. 3. a couple of comments on today's meeting...i am concerned that any hint or threat of a lender liability claim would produce a claim against us, not a valid one, but one we don't want. secondly i would use bankrupcy as a last resort to save our having to put more into the project. clearly others know much better than i, but i don't see us salvaging any equity money from a bankrupcy and i don't see the indian courts or merc honoring a u.s. court order. for whatever value or use, if any, they may be, these are my views, which i reserve the right to change. jim __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35 a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
|