|
|
Enron Mail |
Please proceed with Jonathan Gaisman. Jim -----Original Message----- From: Harris, Stephanie J Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2001 5:49 PM To: Derrick Jr., James Subject: FW: Dabhol -- London QC to help with Commercial PRI Issues -----Original Message----- From: Bruce.Lundstrom@enron.com@ENRON Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2001 5:42 PM To: Harris, Stephanie J Cc: Rob.Walls.enronXgate@enron.com Subject: Dabhol -- London QC to help with Commercial PRI Issues Jim - Linklaters and an Enron rep interviewed QC candidates in London that can help with our commercial PRI policy issues on Dabhol. The commercial policies are governed by UK law. The best pick appears to be Jonathan Gaisman. I'd like your permission to retain and put some of our PRI policy questions to Mr. Gaisman. Thanks, Bruce ---------------------- Forwarded by Bruce Lundstrom/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT on 11/08/2001 05:37 PM --------------------------- From: Kimberlee M Driscoll/ENRON@enronXgate on 11/08/2001 11:52 AM To: Bruce Lundstrom/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT cc: "Peter Cornell (E-mail)" <peter.cornell@Linklaters.com< @SMTP@enronXgate Subject: QCs Bruce, Peter, Sophie and I met with all four QC's this morning. The clear choice, in all of our minds, is Jonathan Gaisman. (See attached file: Jonathan Gaisman.doc)His litigation practice is prinicipally insurance related. He has done political risk insurance matters relating to Eastern Europe. He spoke definitively about practices of different underwriters in the market (i.e., to re-insure, to craft policies, etc.) He knows, quite well, the small community of barristers who may be called upon by Lloyds to handle this. His wife is from India (though Scottish) and he spends holiday time there and knows the country and the people. He worked on North Sea disputes representing Enron in the past. He is straightforward, inquisitive, prepared, thoughtful, and interested in working on this with us. He is also used to working with large American clients. The downside is that, in his words, he does "not have limitless time." He is expecting to be involved in a rather large case in the first half of next year. Alistair Schaff was not a very seasoned barrister, and unprepared for our meeting (in the sense that he hadn't even bothered to read anything about us or the case before we got there -- I did not get the sense he was too busy to do so). He has worked on de facto 'takings' in Iraq cases, and has had a number of cases that have involved questions of mitigation. In addition, he seemed familiar with the option to sue clause in many policies. He has done some work in the distant past with the GOI on letters of credit and shipping matters. He was the only one that mentioned that we might spend some time in the near term thinking about what events we might 'cause' to occur that could help our claims. Richard Jacobs is a fairly young barrister, but had read up on our case and did some preliminary research on case law on political risk insurance issues (which, incidentally, all four barristers agree hardly exists). He did some PRI work in Russia in the early 1990s, and represented brokers in a lender PRI claim regarding a South Seas power station. He stated that many insurance coverage issues (no matter the type of policy) are basically the same questions with a different twist. Interestingly, he has just given some advice to a European investor about a dispute in India on a power plant (contractual matter, not insurance related). He definitely grasped that a detailed review of the facts would be the driver for an expropriation claim. He has travelled to India. He has capacity to work with us in the next 4-8 weeks and beyond. He would be a solid guy to use as a back-up. Stewart Boyd, as you will recall from his CV, is an experienced barrister (58 years old), who sits as an international arbitrator often. He has a relationship with Lord Mustill, for what that is worth. He does alot of insurance and re-insurance work, though he says that not many political risk insurance cases have reached the bar. He has worked on a leading case involving ECGD, and was, interestingly, an expert witness in an OPIC coverage case recently. {We may consider him for just that role, on the DIC issue, should we decide to sue in Texas.} He has dealt with many projects of this type and magnitude, from a contractual dispute point of view, and done quite a bit of work in the electricity sector on privatization matters. He has done a couple of projects (shipping and petroleum industry) in India. He is available for the next couple of weeks, booked for most of December, and then frees up again. I would rank him a strong second choice. I would propose that we issue Gaisman instructions tomorrow or Monday. If you agree, let me know and I will take care of it. Kim - Jonathan Gaisman.doc
|