|
|
Enron Mail |
The intent is that the higher the rating, the higher the legal risk. I
believe the jurisdictional risk is a key factor in creating legal issues even if none exist at the time the deal is done. Does that make sense? Stuart should be on the LC. Randy is the GC of South America. Mark Lance Schuler-Legal 01/04/2001 04:50 PM To: Mark E Haedicke/HOU/ECT@ECT cc: Subject: Risk Memos and Legal Committee As for the email on Risk Memos: I thought it looked good and is very appropriate. I did note that there were 4 categories for low risk jurisdictions, and only 3 categories for each of medium and high risk jurisdictions. Maybe we cannot have a "no legal" risk in a high risk jurisdiction; but what about "many significant" legal issues in a medium risk jurisdiction? Is this then too many categories? Also, would it make any sense to have ratings of 1 through 4 only, with a requirement to specify whether we are dealing with a low, medium or high risk jurisdiction? In other words, could anyone be confused into believing that a rating of 4 is better than a rating of a 5? As currently set forth, a higher rating does not necessarily equate to a greater risk. Unless a reader were very familiar with the rating scale, someone might interpret a low number, out of say 10, as having minimal risk, when ratings 4, 7 and 10 may actually be the "worst". As for the OGC and Legal Committee: I note only that Dan and Lisa would no longer be on the LC. How do you think we would convey this to them? Also, I was understanding that Stuart would start to be included. I have also been asked recently where Randy Young technically fits within the system. He is on the OGC, but I am still confused where he is technically on some organization chart. Thanks. Lance. W. Lance Schuler Enron North America Corp. 1400 Smith Street, EB 3826 Houston, Texas 77002 Phone: 713/853-5419 Fax: 713/646-3393 Email: lance.schuler-legal@enron.com
|