|
|
Enron Mail |
I do support the change. Let me know what I can do to help. You are
correct: this is the way we handle regulatory counsel in other regions, particularly the US. What Derrick and I have agreed with regard to counsel selection is: gov't/reg affairs picks the counsel we want to use and he retains a veto, which has rarely if ever been exercised. Once we have retained counsel we will use that counsel on other regulatory projects unless the legal department starts to have a problem with the firm (eg because they represent someone against us in litigation). Again, I don't recall this ever being an issue. It seems to work: outside counsel gets the message that we will look dimly on any firm that squares off against us and we select the most qualified counsel on our issues. Mark Schroeder@ECT 09/01/2000 06:18 AM To: Steven J Kean/NA/Enron@Enron cc: Subject: 2001 budget You should be receiving today a copy of my draft budget proposed for Enron Europe for 2001. I understand from Nick that they are doing their own budget for Enron Japan, which I will see only after the fact. MOST IMPORTANTLY, you will see that I am budgetting to pay a substantial sum for legal fees. I will be proposing to John Sherriff, Michael Brown (our new COO and former General Counsel, which will make my proposal doubly problematic), and to Mark Evans (current General Counsel) that I pay/manage our outside regulatory counsel. We can discuss (rather than do a lengthy e-mail), but having this function managed by Legal (and Houston/Jim Derrick rejecting our choice of counsel in important cases), is increasingly a problem. I believe this will mirror what you do in the USA, e.g., Dan Watkiss, and hope that I can count on your support for this change. thansk mcs
|