|
|
Enron Mail |
Clement, Dan,
Below is an e-mail from my counterpart at Coastal with comments to the revised Enron Corp draft that Clement provided to me in his e-mail on Dec.. 21st. Can each of you please review these concerns. If the Master will not be executed until after their merger with El Paso, I think it is OK to accept a Unified guaranty cap instead of specifif limits. I was origninally thought the reason for the specific dollar limits was because of Contracts. Thanks Russell ---------------------- Forwarded by Russell Diamond/HOU/ECT on 01/05/2001 01:55 PM --------------------------- Kiran.Parthasarathy@CMenergy.com on 01/04/2001 01:46:03 PM To: Russell.Diamond@enron.com cc: Porter.Ryan@CMenergy.com, Don.Fishbeck@CMenergy.com Subject: RE: Pending Guaranty for Physical Business Russell, We looked at the revised redline on the Enron physical business sent by you on Dec 21st 00. We have the following important comments: (1) The first page of the Guaranty refers to specific Contracts that will be covered by the Guaranty and one identified Contract is the Enfolio Master Firm Purchase/ Sale Agreement.? As you are aware, this Contract has not been signed between Coastal Merchant Energy and Enron companies and will not probably be signed (if and) until our pending merger is completed.? Therefore we request that the Guaranty language be broadened to include all Obligations of the Enron entities to CME (and not be Contract specific). (2)The third page of the Guaranty discusses Maximum Limit (Section 2) and sets specific numerical caps for each of the covered Enron entities.? We had requested for a unified Cap earlier and once again request that a unified Cap be set for all entities.? (3)The fifth page of the Guaranty (Section 9), says that this Guaranty will supersede the Old Guaranty that was issued jointly to Engage US and Engage Canada.? As you are aware, we are not affiliated or connected with Engage Canada and therefore cannot bind Engage Canada whatsoever in the proposed Guaranty.? That was the rationale for our insert in that paragraph ("insofar as it respects Contract Party").? This was deleted in your revised redline. We are anxious to complete this Guaranty as soon as possible.? We suggest, if it is necessary, a conference call involving ourselves and our Counsel. Please respond at your earliest convenience. Thanks Kiran -----Original Message----- From: Russell.Diamond@enron.com [mailto:Russell.Diamond@enron.com] Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2000 10:24 AM To: Kiran.Parthasarathy@CMenergy.com Cc: veronica.espinoza@enron.com; Michael.Hugetz@CMenergy.com; Dai.Nguyen@CMenergy.com; Don.Fishbeck@CMenergy.com Subject: Re: Pending Guaranty for Physical Business Kiran, Please see attached comments from our legal group.? If there are any additional concerns regarding the comments please contact Clement Abrams- 713-853-5986. Thank you, Russell (See attached file: Coastal Outgoing.doc)
|