|
|
Enron Mail |
Let me know what the outcome of the meeting is. Thanks. Mark
Peter Keohane 12/12/2000 12:10 PM To: John J Lavorato/Corp/Enron@Enron, Mark E Haedicke/HOU/ECT@ECT, Rob Milnthorp/CAL/ECT@ECT cc: Sharon Crawford/CAL/ECT@ECT, robert.anderson@blakes.com, hunterw@macleoddixon.com Subject: NGX/CEL Litigation - Agenda for Tomorrow PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL I think we need to talk to the following issues tomorrow: 1. Status update on court proceedings; 2. Evidentiary matters, including: (a) formal industry support for our position - without it, we are fighting an uphill battle, and I understand the other side will be filing evidence of industry support for their position; and (b) a detailed and focused analysis of the pre-NGX and post-NGX index consequences, in terms of volume and pricing consequences - our analysis to date has proven weak; 3. Goals, including can we live with the risk of no CGPR AECO index. In other words, our best argument is likely that CGPR cannot pass off what it purports to be an AECO index reflecting the broader market, but NGX (and EOL for that matter) are free to publish their own index. The result might be that NGX (or EOL for that matter) is free to publish their own index, provided it is not passed of as being the CGPR AECO index reflecting the broader market, and Enerdata then must publish the broader index, if it wishes, as the CGPR AECO index. However, if CGPR chose not to continue publishing, it is likely going to be free to do so, with the effect that there would be no CGPR AECO index as referred to in our Confirms and Transactions, which would have to then be altered to account for a separate and new index, which for the time being could be NGX or EOL. I have asked our outside lawyers to join in on the call at 2:00 p.m. (Calgary time) tomorrow. Peter
|