|
|
Enron Mail |
The whole thing also bugs me on an intuitive level, but I'm not sure it is a
legal conflict of interest. The Northern cases he is involved in are not really "GISB matters." There are certainly issues like the 637 compliance issue that involve GISB standards, however. GISB is a freestanding entitity and his representation does not equate to representation of Enron so he could claim that his only client interest to worry about is GISB itself. As long as he does not take positions in Northern cases that are inconsistent with what GISB wants, he's technically OK. I suspect he'd argue that his work in the Northern docket is completely consistent with GISB's objective of achieving world domination. This was my from the hip analysis when Jay first showed up in our cases, so I may have missed something. For example, I'm not really clear on GISB's structure. Can we argue that it is not a real stand alone entity but rather a "front" for a cooperative group of companies that includes Enron? If so, we might have a real conflict. Thanks. DF Shelley Corman 05/09/2000 09:12 AM To: Dari Dornan/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Drew Fossum/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Mary Kay Miller/ET&S/Enron@ENRON cc: Subject: Supplemental NDG Comments in RM98-10 I was impressed that NDG filed revised comments in RM98-10 correcting their earlier mis-statements that GISB had ratified imbalance netting and trading standards. The revised 2 page NDG filing states that GISB has not yet ratified the standards. Then I noticed who signed the pleading -- Jay Costan. I guess he ought to know, as he is GISB general counsel! Does anyone else find this to be a conflict of interest for him to be GISB general counsel & then be counsel of a customer taking a position against a pipeline in a GISB matter. I like Jay a lot, but I'm thinking of clarifying our understanding of his outside representation while he is GISB general counsel.
|