|
|
Enron Mail |
Enron CFO's Partnership Had Millions in Profit
The Wall Street Journal, 10/19/01 Enron CFO Profited From Partnerships With Company, WSJ Reports Bloomberg, 10/19/01 The New Power Company Revises Its Netting Agreement With Enron; Provides Fo= r Receivables and Inventory Financing Business Wire, 10/19/01 The Five Dumbest Things on Wall Street This Week TheStreet.com, 10/19/01 K Street's Top 10: The Shifting Lineup National Journal, 10/20/01 Houston entrepreneurs added to Texas Business Hall of Fame Houston Chronicle, 10/20/01 Recession, Budget Cuts, Travel Fears To Subdue LME Week Dow Jones Commodities Service, 10/19/01 HC to hear DPC's plea The Times of India, 10/19/01 Enron CFO's Partnership Had Millions in Profit By Rebecca Smith and John R. Emshwiller Staff Reporters of The Wall Street Journal 10/19/2001 The Wall Street Journal C1 (Copyright © 2001, Dow Jones & Company, Inc.) A limited partnership organized by Enron Corp.'s chief financial officer, A= ndrew S. Fastow, realized millions of dollars in profits in transactions it= did with Enron, according to an internal partnership document.=20 The partnership, in some instances, benefited from renegotiating the terms = of existing deals with the Houston energy company in ways that improved the= partnership's financial positions or reduced its risk of losses. Mr. Fastow, and possibly a handful of partnership associates, realized more= than $7 million last year in management fees and about $4 million in capit= al increases on an investment of nearly $3 million in the partnership, whic= h was set up in December 1999 principally to do business with Enron.=20 The profits from the deals were disclosed in a financial report to investor= s in the partnership, LJM2 Co-Investment LP, that was signed by Mr. Fastow = as the general partner and dated April 30. In one case, the report indicate= s the partnership was able to improve profits by terminating a transaction = early.=20 The LJM2 arrangement has become controversial for Enron, as shareholders an= d analysts have raised questions about whether it posed a conflict by putti= ng the company's chief financial officer, who has a fiduciary duty to Enron= shareholders, in a position of reaping financial rewards for representing = LJM2 investors in business deals with Enron. Investors in LJM2 include Wach= ovia Corp., General Electric Co.'s General Electric Capital Corp. and Credi= t Suisse Group's Credit Suisse First Boston.=20 Attention has focused on Mr. Fastow's partnership activities at a tumultuou= s time for Enron, which over the past decade grew enormously by becoming th= e nation's biggest energy-trading company.=20 This year, though, it has been hit by a string of troubles, from soured bus= iness initiatives to executive departures. On Tuesday, Enron announced a $6= 18 million third-quarter loss, because of a $1.01 billion write-off on inve= stments in broadband telecommunications, retail energy services and Azurix = Corp., a water company. A small chunk of that write-off, about $35 million,= was attributed to ending certain LJM2-related transactions. That terminati= on also produced a $1.2 billion reduction in Enron shareholder equity as th= e company decided to repurchase 55 million shares that had been part of LJM= 2 deals.=20 At 4 p.m. in New York Stock Exchange composite trading, Enron was down 9.9%= , or $3.20, to $29 a share. Within the past year, the stock had topped $80 = a share.=20 Enron officials didn't have any comment about the LJM2 partnership document= . Enron has consistently said its dealings with LJM2 have been proper. They= said the LJM2 deals, like ones done with other parties, were aimed at help= ing hedge against fluctuating market values of its assets and adding source= s of capital.=20 Mr. Fastow has declined several requests for an interview about LJM2. In la= te July, he formally severed his ties with LJM2, as a result of what Enron = officials said was growing unease by Wall Street analysts and major shareho= lders. Mr. Fastow has been finance chief of Enron since 1997 and has been w= ith the firm 11 years, which included extensive work setting up and managin= g company investments.=20 Michael Kopper, a former Enron executive who an Enron spokesman said is now= helping to operate LJM2, declined to comment. He also wouldn't describe hi= s relation to LJM2.=20 In his April 30 report, Mr. Fastow said the partnership, which raised $394 = million, had invested in several Enron-related deals involving power plants= and other assets as well as company stock. The document said LJM2 sought a= 29% internal rate of return. That was down from a 48% targeted rate of ret= urn at the end of 2000, which the document said was due in part to a declin= e in the value of LJM2's investment in New Power Co., an Enron-related ener= gy retailer. In some transactions, LJM2 did much better than the 29% target= , though this sometimes involved renegotiating individual deals.=20 In September 2000, the partnership invested $30 million in "Raptor III," wh= ich involved writing put options committing LJM2 to buy Enron stock at a se= t price for six months. Four months into this deal, LJM2 approached Enron t= o settle the investment early, "causing LJM2 to receive its $30 million cap= ital invested plus $10.5 million in profit," the report said. The renegotia= tion was before a decline in Enron's stock price, which could have forced L= JM2 to buy Enron shares at a loss of as much as $8 each, the document indic= ated. Copyright ? 2000 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. =09 Enron CFO Profited From Partnerships With Company, WSJ Reports 2001-10-19 01:00 (New York) Houston, Oct. 18 (Bloomberg) -- Enron Corp.'s Chief Financial Officer Andrew Fastow realized profits through a limited partnership that did business with Enron, the Wall Street Journal reported, citing an internal partnership document. LJM2 Co-Investment LP, of which Fastow is a general partner, made millions of dollars on transactions with Enron, the paper said. Fastow and possibly a handful of partnership associates made $7 million last year in management fees and about $4 million in capital increases on an investment of about $3 million in the partnership, the paper said. Enron shareholder Fred Greenberg filed a lawsuit yesterday, alleging that Enron's board cost the company at least $35 million by allowing Fastow to manage partnerships that bought Enron assets. Enron reported $1.01 billion in third-quarter losses from failed investments. The Five Dumbest Things on Wall Street This Week By K.C. Swanson <mailto:kcswanson@thestreet.com< Staff Reporter TheStreet.com 10/19/2001 06:59 AM EDT URL: <http://www.thestreet.com/markets/dumbest/10002661.html<; 1. Bayer Fighting the Bears? One beneficiary of the anthrax scare has been Bayer AG (BAYZY:OTC BB ADR - = news - commentary) , the German chemical maker, which has seen its share pr= ice gain 10.4% since the terrorist attacks. But investors bidding up the st= ock might be getting ahead of themselves.=20 Bayer makes Cipro, a leading treatment for anthrax. But while the demand fo= r Cipro is high, sales from the drug are only a small portion of the compan= y's overall revenue, which totaled 30.9 billion euros last year (and, accor= ding to analysts, will increase even more this year, due to its acquisition= of Aventis CropScience, a crop protection and production company). To put = the demand for Cipro in context, J.P. Morgan expects U.S. sales of the drug= to be approximately 1.2 billion euros for 2001.=20 Even emergency purchases of Cipro probably won't add that much to Bayer's o= verall revenues. The president has asked for $643 million for antibiotics t= o combat bioterrorist attacks. While it's possible that sum will be increas= ed, not all the money would be spent on Cipro.=20 Besides, it's not even clear that Bayer will remain the only producer of Ci= pro. Though the company holds the patent for the drug, there's some pressur= e in Congress for the government to purchase a generic version from other m= anufacturers.=20 On another front, Bayer is currently battling a class-action lawsuit relate= d to an anti-cholesterol drug implicated in a number of deaths. It was forc= ed to withdraw the drug from the market.=20 Bayer may offer protection against anthrax, but that doesn't mean it's a re= fuge for investors.=20 2. Losses at Twice the Price You know things are bad for a company when its losses per share are double = the price of the shares themselves. That's the case for i2 Technologies (IT= WO:Nasdaq - news - commentary) , the supply-chain software maker. After mar= ket close on Tuesday, the company posted losses under generally accepted ac= counting principles that amounted to $5.5 billion, or $13.25 per share, for= the latest quarter, including all charges.=20 In other words, i2's losses were more than twice the value of its share pri= ce, which closed at $5.69 before the announcement.=20 Much of the huge writedown reflects amortized goodwill from the purchase of= Aspect Development in March 2000.=20 To be fair, investors in companies that have made big acquisitions like i2 = typically focus on pro forma earnings, which exclude charges and extraordin= ary items. By that measure, i2's losses didn't look quite so bad: The compa= ny met analysts' consensus expectations with a loss of $55.3 million, or 13= cents per share.=20 Still, investors met i2's earnings with disapproval, knocking the stock dow= n 25% the day after they were reported.=20 3. Microsoft's Bag of Tricks In times like these, there's comfort in knowing business goes on as usual a= t many U.S. companies. Just like the old days, Microsoft (MSFT:Nasdaq - new= s - commentary) is in the hot seat for its sharklike behavior toward a comp= etitor.=20 It stands accused of sending 3,000 fake cereal boxes emblazoned with the wo= rds "Microsoft Server Crunch" to customers of rival server software maker N= ovell. The boxes, according to Novell, contained "a number of false and mis= leading statements" intended as putdowns of Novell products.=20 Among the attempted insults were some not-so-clever plays on packaged food.= For example, in a reference to Novell's flagship software product, a line = on the Microsoft boxes read: "What's the expiration date on that NetWare pl= atform?" (A round of applause, please, for those gut-splittingly funny engi= neers.)=20 The boxes also said Novell is shifting its focus from software to consultin= g services, which Novell says isn't true.=20 Microsoft spokesman Jim Desler said the cereal boxes were primarily intende= d to advertise Microsoft services, not to slight Novell. "It was all in the= theme of a mock cereal box," he said. "It was a modest campaign."=20 In response to Novell's complaints, he says Microsoft sent out a letter in = September to recipients of the boxes to clarify some of its statements, and= it's just agreed to send another letter to appease the company. For the re= cord, Novell said it's not calling off its lawsuit for unspecified money da= mages.=20 4. AMD's Feisty Pledge CEOs don't get their jobs by being eloquent, and it probably would be too m= uch to expect them to sound statesmanlike. But sometimes their oratorical r= ough edges cross the line into embarrassing.=20 Case in point: Comments from Jerry Sanders, the CEO of Advanced Micro Devic= es (AMD:NYSE - news - commentary) , which earlier this week reported a loss= for the first time in almost three years. The company, facing harsh pricin= g competition from Intel (INTC:Nasdaq - news - commentary) , said its reven= ue was down 22% from a year ago and it expects a likely operating loss for = the fourth quarter.=20 Given recent declines in consumer confidence, the downturn is likely to be = extended by several quarters, Sanders admitted. But in a conference call, h= e indulged in some spirited fist-shaking. Citing the company's so-called "H= ammer" architecture for processors, Sanders declared, "We feel that when th= e upturn comes, we're going to kick ---."=20 Does this guy carry around a surfboard in his car or what? Mr. Sanders, mee= t Mr. Reeves.=20 OK, so we actually kind of admire Sanders' never-capitulate spirit. But his= comment seems a little redundant, because just about everybody will look b= etter when the economy turns around. Because that may not be anytime soon, = what matters is how companies weather the interim -- feisty pledges notwith= standing.=20 5. Enron's Rabbit-From-a-Hat Style Analysts have complained for some time about Enron's (ENE:NYSE - news - com= mentary) rabbit-from-a-hat style accounting, with which the company produce= d results that wowed investors without making it quite clear where they cam= e from. Now that its business has taken a sour turn, that tendency has gott= en even more unsettling.=20 To cap off its disappointing earnings results this week -- Enron posted a s= teep loss after taking a $1.01 billion charge -- the company let drop that = its shareholder equity had decreased by $1.2 billion.=20 In a conference call, CEO Kenneth Lay attributed the reduction in equity to= the "removal of an obligation to issue a number of shares." According to a= report in The Wall Street Journal, Enron repurchased 55 million shares iss= ued through a series of transactions involving LJM Capital, a partnership t= hat until recently was headed up by Enron's CFO.=20 TSC's Peter Eavis has written that it appears Enron lent LJM money to buy E= nron stock.=20 Ironically, the company boasted in its earnings release this week that it h= ad expanded reporting of its financial results, presumably to quiet its acc= ounting critics.=20 Enron's transactions have been so labyrinthine that it's hard to identify e= xactly if or how they were inappropriate. But the latest revelation, to say= the least, does nothing to bolster the company's credibility. Enron, whose= CEO resigned unexpectedly in August, had seen its stock fall 59% for the y= ear leading up to its latest earnings release. Since then, it's dropped ano= ther 12.6%=20 The New Power Company Revises Its Netting Agreement With Enron; Provides Fo= r Receivables and Inventory Financing 10/19/2001 Business Wire (Copyright © 2001, Business Wire) PURCHASE, N.Y.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Oct. 19, 2001--The New Power Company ("New= Power"), a wholly owned subsidiary of NewPower Holdings, Inc. (NYSE: NPW) t= oday filed a Form 8-K with the Securities and Exchange Commission reporting= that it has revised its master netting agreement with Enron North America = Corp., Enron Energy Services, Inc., and Enron Power Marketing, Inc. (togeth= er, the "Enron Subsidiaries").=20 The amendment affects the Master Cross-Product Netting, Setoff, and Securit= y Agreement (the "Master Netting Agreement") among NewPower and the Enron S= ubsidiaries, and expands through January 4, 2002, the types of collateral t= hat NewPower is permitted to post to the Enron Subsidiaries. The effect of the amendment is to reduce, through January 4, 2002, the amou= nt of cash collateral that NewPower is required to post to the Enron Subsid= iaries. Under the amended Master Netting Agreement, the first $70 million o= f posted collateral must be in the form of cash, while amounts in excess of= $70 million may consist of not more than $40 million of eligible receivabl= es and inventory of NewPower, valued at discounts specified in the amendmen= t, and subject to a $25 million limit for October 2001. Pledging receivable= s and inventory is consistent with NewPower's previously announced intentio= n to secure asset-backed financing.=20 With the amendment and NewPower's cost reduction efforts, and absent a simi= lar rate of decline in commodity prices or other significant events, NewPow= er believes that it has sufficient financial resources to conduct its busin= ess until it secures ongoing asset-backed financing, which will be necessar= y upon the expiration of the amendment. NewPower has been and is actively s= eeking to arrange asset-backed financing with other parties, although to da= te no such arrangements have been secured.=20 The Company expects to meet its previous estimate of net loss and loss per = basic and diluted share for the third quarter ended September 30, 2001. How= ever, customer count and revenues are expected to be slightly lower than pr= eviously forecast.=20 The Company will provide revised guidance for the fourth quarter 2001 and a= n outlook for 2002 on its third quarter conference call scheduled for Thurs= day, November 8.=20 Cautionary Statement=20 This press release contains certain forward-looking statements within the m= eaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, Section 27A= of the Securities Act of 1933, and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange = Act of 1934. These statements involve risks and uncertainties and may diffe= r materially from actual future events or results. Although we believe that= our expectations are based on reasonable assumptions, we can give no assur= ance that our goals will be achieved. The Company undertakes no obligation = to publicly release any revisions to these forward-looking statements to re= flect events or circumstances after the date hereof or to reflect the occur= rence of unanticipated events. Important factors that could cause actual re= sults to differ from estimates or projections contained in the forward-look= ing statements include our limited operating history; delays or changes in = the rules for the restructuring of the electric and natural gas markets; ou= r ability to attract and retain customers; our ability to manage our energy= requirements and sell energy at a sufficient margin given the volatility i= n prices for electricity and natural gas; the effect of commodity volatilit= y on collateral requirements and liquidity; our dependence on third parties= to provide critical functions to us and to our customers; and conditions o= f the capital markets affecting the availability of capital. Readers are re= ferred to the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ending Dece= mber 31, 2000 and our Registration Statement on Form S-1 (No. 333.41412) on= file with the Securities and Exchange Commission for a discussion of facto= rs that could cause actual results to differ materially from these forward-= looking statements.=20 About NewPower Holdings, Inc.=20 NewPower Holdings, Inc. (NYSE: NPW), through its subsidiary, The New Power = Company, is the first national provider of electricity and natural gas to r= esidential and small commercial customers in the United States. The Company= offers consumers in restructured retail energy markets competitive energy = prices, pricing choices, improved customer service and other innovative pro= ducts, services and incentives. CONTACT: The New Power Company Investors Kathryn Corbally, 914/697-2444 Kat= hryn.Corbally@newpower.com Patrick McCoy, 914/697-2431 Manager, Investor Re= lations pmccoy@newpower.com Media Gael Doar, 914/697-2451 gdoar@newpower.co= m Terri Cohen, 914/697-2457 Terri.Cohen@newpower.com=20 08:32 EDT OCTOBER 19, 2001=20 Copyright ? 2000 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. =09 LOBBYING K Street's Top 10: The Shifting Lineup Shawn Zeller 10/20/2001 National Journal Copyright 2001 by National Journal Group Inc. All rights reserved. How do the Washington lobbying firms with the heftiest incomes put themselv= es in the upper echelon of K Street practitioners? Van Scoyoc Associates In= c. does it by signing up a stable of smaller clients and working hard to re= tain them. Quinn Gillespie & Associates doesn't have a long client list, bu= t it is at the top of the heap in terms of average fee per client. Greenber= g Traurig, meanwhile, lured away a rival firm's top rainmaker-and his lucra= tive book of clients.=20 These are just some of the business strategies revealed in National Journal= 's survey of the 10 Washington lobbying firms with the highest fee income f= rom January 1 to June 30. The four top firms at midyear 2001 are the same o= nes as a year earlier: perennial powerhouses Cassidy & Associates Inc.; Pat= ton Boggs; Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld; and Verner, Liipfert, Bernhar= d, McPherson and Hand. But two new players-boasting huge growth rates-are among the firms nipping = at the heels of these top dogs.=20 Greenberg Traurig, which came in at No. 5 in National Journal's midyear 200= 1 rankings, had never before been in the top tier of Washington lobbying fi= rms. According to PoliticalMoneyLine, which compiles a comprehensive annual= list of all lobbying firms, Greenberg Traurig had the 35th-highest income = during the first six months of last year.=20 And No. 7 in the midyear 2001 rankings is Quinn Gillespie, another first-ti= me member of the top 10. Formed just a year and a half ago by former Clinto= n White House Counsel Jack Quinn and Ed Gillespie-a one-time adviser to Hou= se Majority Leader Dick Armey, R-Texas-the firm has seen its fortunes rocke= t upward. Quinn Gillespie was No. 13 in the first six months of 2000.=20 In between these two newcomers is Van Scoyoc Associates, ranked at No. 6. T= here has been a steady rise for Van Scoyoc, which was No. 28 in fee income = at the end of 1996, the year in which the 1995 Lobbying Disclosure Act firs= t took effect.=20 Rounding out the top 10 at midyear 2001 are stalwarts Williams & Jensen; Wa= shington Council Ernst & Young; and Barbour Griffith & Rogers.=20 National Journal ranks the top-10 lobbying firms every six months by tallyi= ng the fees that firms report to the House and Senate as required under the= 1995 legislation. National Journal tabulates total fees for only the 25 to= p firms in PoliticalMoneyLine's comprehensive annual survey.=20 With its $16.68 million in fees for the first six months of the year, Cassi= dy & Associates continued to blow away the competition. The last time any f= irm reported a six-month total larger than Cassidy's was during the first h= alf of 1998, when Verner, Liipfert led the way. During the first six months= of this year, Cassidy & Associates received a massive fee of $1 million fr= om the Taiwan Studies Institute, a think tank with close ties to the Taiwan= ese government; Boeing Co. paid Cassidy & Associates $600,000; and Tiffany = & Co. paid it $400,000 to lobby on legislation that would bar diamonds mine= d in conflict-ridden areas of the world from entering the global market.=20 Despite the economic downturn and the terrorist threat, lobbying goes on, c= ompany Chairman Gerald S.J. Cassidy said. "During difficult times, people c= ome to Washington with their problems. During more-robust times, they come = seeking opportunities."=20 But the biggest story at midyear was the rise of Greenberg Traurig. The fir= m, which posted just $1.71 million in lobbying fees during the first half o= f 2000, saw that amount more than quadruple to nearly $8.7 million this yea= r. Much of the credit goes to Jack Abramoff, the conservative K Street move= r and shaker who is an ally of House Majority Whip Tom DeLay, R-Texas. Last= year, Abramoff left his old firm, Preston Gates Ellis & Rouvelas Meeds, an= d brought $3 million in business with him to Greenberg Traurig. Preston Gat= es, which was ranked in the top five during Abramoff's tenure, dropped out = of National Journal's rankings this year. The lobbying firm's fees fell by = nearly 50 percent.=20 Abramoff continued to make rain at Greenberg Traurig, billing $860,000 to t= he Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians, $500,000 to the Commonwealth of the= Northern Mariana Islands, and $300,000 to garment manufacturers that opera= te in that U.S. territory. A few new clients also forked over big bucks: th= e Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana ($440,000); Voor Huisen Project Management, = a homebuilder with international operations ($300,000); and the American In= ternational Center ($100,000). Despite initial concerns among some Greenber= g Traurig partners about whether Abramoff would fit in, Abramoff insists th= at his team of lobbyists has been "totally integrated" into the firm.=20 But Abramoff wasn't the only one responsible for Greenberg Traurig's higher= earnings. Ronald W. Kleinman, a former State Department lawyer, persuaded = Congress with the help of several Greenberg Traurig colleagues to pass Sect= ion 2002 of the 2000 Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act. Th= is section of the law ordered the Treasury Secretary to use Cuban governmen= t funds that are frozen in U.S. banks to compensate the families of three m= en who had won multimillion-dollar judgments against Cuba under a 1996 amen= dment to the Foreign Sovereignty Immunities Act. The amendment allows victi= ms of terrorism or their families to sue states that are on the U.S. list o= f state sponsors of terrorism.=20 Greenberg Traurig represented the families of Armando Alejandre, Carlos Alb= erto Costa, and Mario M. de la Pena-three members of Brothers to the Rescue= , a Cuban-American group that rescues Cubans in the waters off Florida. The= three men died when their plane was shot down over international waters on= February 24, 1996. The families sued Cuba and were awarded $96.7 million i= n damages by a U.S. District Court judge in 1997. The State Department oppo= sed payment, but President Clinton signed the trafficking bill. Greenberg T= raurig reported a fee of $4 million.=20 Fred W. Baggett, the chair of Greenberg Traurig's governmental practice gro= up, said this was a one-time fee, but he added that the Cuban case "establi= shed a platform so that the firm can support undertaking those one-time eff= orts in the future," and noted, "We have a few coming down the pipeline."= =20 Baggett said the firm has cases involving an American killed in Jerusalem b= y the Palestinian group Hamas, and Americans who were used as human shields= in Iraq during the Persian Gulf War. None of the Americans was killed, and= all were eventually released.=20 Taking the flip side of the mega-fee approach was Van Scoyoc Associates, wh= ich reported receiving no fee above $180,000. Nonetheless, the firm continu= ed its steady rise. A key reason, said firm President H. Stewart Van Scoyoc= , was the ability to recruit and retain clients. The firm signed up 34 clie= nts between January 1 and June 30, while only nine out of 159 clients termi= nated contracts during the period.=20 "We work hard at defining the relationship with a client before we sign a c= ontract," said Van Scoyoc. "We make sure we're clear on the goals and objec= tives, and in a typical relationship, we don't guarantee that we can do eve= rything." The firm's $6.24 million total for the first half of 2001 was 23 = percent higher than its fees for the same period last year.=20 Quinn Gillespie's ascent into the top 10 was more along the lines of Greenb= erg Traurig's. Quinn Gillespie's billings were almost $6.09 million at midy= ear 2001, a 71 percent rise over the same period last year. The firm has on= ly 34 paying clients, but the average fee per client-$180,000-is the highes= t among the top 10. During the six months, the British Columbia Lumber Trad= e Council paid a fee of $540,000 to Quinn Gillespie, while Enron Corp. paid= $525,000. The Canadian group hoped its high-powered lobbyists would win gr= eater access for Canadian lumber in the United States, but U.S. tariffs wer= e reinstated earlier this year. Lobbying for Enron focused on energy deregu= lation, particularly in California. Enron is a major creditor of Southern C= alifornia Edison, the utility whose financial woes resulted in power shorta= ges in California last summer.=20 Quinn Gillespie's staff has grown from nine at the time of the founding to = nearly 30 today. "We like to think we have a toolbox here-people who may be= Republicans or Democrats but who also have different skills that benefit t= he client," Quinn said.=20 Patton Boggs had fees of $10.26 million in the first six months of 2001, bu= t that was just a 5 percent rise over the same period in 2000. Still, the f= irm leapfrogged over Verner, Liipfert to capture the No. 2 ranking. Patton = Boggs earned $360,000 from Russia's government-owned NTV television network= , which was at the center of a controversy earlier this year when the gover= nment took over the independent network and ousted its staff.=20 Akin, Gump also jumped past Verner, Liipfert to No. 3 in the rankings, post= ing $9.48 million in fees-a 16 percent increase over a year earlier. Akin, = Gump's biggest client was the troubled tire manufacturer Bridgestone/Firest= one Inc., which paid just over $1.5 million in fees. Akin, Gump also earned= big money from AT&T ($800,000) and the Gila River Indian Community ($620,0= 00).=20 At No. 4, Verner, Liipfert saw the biggest drop in fees, taking in $8.84 mi= llion in the first six months of 2001-down 16 percent from the same period = in 2000. Verner, Liipfert lost lucrative contracts with Puerto Rico after t= he government there changed hands last year. (See this issue, p. 3273.)=20 Rounding out the top-10 rankings, Williams & Jensen at No. 8 billed $5.68 m= illion, a 12 percent increase over the first half of 2000, while Washington= Council Ernst & Young saw its fees drop 11 percent to $5.5 million. The fi= rm fell four places to No. 9 in the rankings. Barbour Griffith & Rogers's f= ee income was up 7 percent to $5.48 million, putting the firm at No. 10.=20 Falling out of the midyear top-10 rankings were Preston Gates-No. 6 at midy= ear 2000-and PricewaterhouseCoopers, No. 7 last year. PricewaterhouseCooper= s's billings were $5 million for the period, a 6 percent drop from the firs= t half of 2000. Copyright ? 2000 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. =09 Oct. 19, 2001 Houston Chronicle Houston entrepreneurs added to Texas Business Hall of Fame=20 By TOM FOWLER=20 Copyright 2001 Houston Chronicle=20 The Texas Business Hall of Fame's annual awards ceremony Thursday night hon= ored four Houston business leaders.=20 The event at the George R. Brown Convention Center put the spotlight on Wei= ngarten Realty Investors Chairman Stanford Alexander; Compaq Computer found= er and former Chief Executive Officer Rod Canion; retired Reliant Energy Ch= airman and CEO Don Jordan; and Dynegy Chairman and CEO Chuck Watson.=20 This is the 19th year the nonprofit Texas Business Hall of Fame Foundation = has honored the state's business leaders with a dinner and induction event.= =20 As chairman of Weingarten Realty Investors, Stanford Alexander built the co= mpany into one of the nation's largest publicly traded real estate companie= s.=20 After serving in the U.S. Air Force, Alexander joined J. Weingarten, a Hous= ton-based chain of 87 supermarkets. He later became an executive with Weing= arten Markets Realty Co., an affiliated real estate firm that developed fre= e-standing supermarket stores.=20 The firm later changed its name to Weingarten Realty. The Houston-based com= pany is now publicly traded on the New York Stock Exchange.=20 Weingarten owns shopping centers, warehouses and other property in 17 state= s from coast to coast.=20 Weingarten's notable developments in Houston include the upscale Village Ar= cade near Rice University and the Centre at Post Oak, across from the Galle= ria.=20 Rod Canion came up with the idea behind Compaq in 1982 after a trip to a lo= cal ComputerLand store. Along with colleagues from Texas Instruments, Jim H= arris and industrial designer Ted Papajohn, Canion envisioned a portable co= mputer that ran all the programs that operated on the IBM PC.=20 By the next year, the company was producing the original Compaq luggable co= mputer, a move that essentially created the modern PC industry. By 1987, it= s fifth year, the company made business history by breaking $1 billion in s= ales, the fastest pace ever for a corporate startup.=20 Canion left Compaq in October 1991 but continued to be active in other vent= ures. In 1992, he founded Insource Technology Group, a consulting services = and network engineering firm, and continues to serve as chairman.=20 Don Jordan has been in the forefront of Houston business and society for de= cades. And even though he retired from the post of chairman and chief execu= tive at Reliant Energy in late 1999, he has remained active in the city's g= rowth and development.=20 Jordan was with Reliant and its predecessor Houston Industries for 44 years= and helped position the company for its eventual split between the company= 's regulated businesses, such as HL&P and Entex, and unregulated business t= hat is now called Reliant Resources.=20 Jordan, along with his corporate rival Ken Lay of Enron, was instrumental i= n the successful campaign last year to convince voters to approve the use o= f public funds to build a new arena downtown for the Houston Rockets.=20 Jordan has spent a lot of time on the Houston Livestock Show & Rodeo board = and many other civic groups.=20 Chuck Watson has built Dynegy into one of Houston's leading energy companie= s, but he is more well-known for his forays into the world of sports.=20 Watson established NGC Corp., Dynegy's predecessor, in 1985 and served as p= resident until becoming chairman and chief executive officer in 1989.=20 Recently Watson was revealed to be the largest investor in the limited part= nership assembled to put together the Texans, Houston's National Football L= eague franchise. It begins playing next year.=20 Watson also owns the Aeros, Houston's American Hockey League team.=20 Watson's support was also pivotal to getting voters last year to approve th= e use of public funds for the new downtown arena. Watson had opposed an ear= lier deal to use public money to build the facility.=20 Watson has also been a strong supporter of Houston's bid to land the 2012 O= lympic Games.=20 To date, the foundation has awarded more than $1.8 million in scholarships = to students pursuing business degree at Texas colleges and universities.=20 Recession, Budget Cuts, Travel Fears To Subdue LME Week By Mark Long Of DOW JONES NEWSWIRES 10/19/2001 Dow Jones Commodities Service (Copyright © 2001, Dow Jones & Company, Inc.) LONDON -(Dow Jones)- The many travails of the metals industry will dampen t= he spirits of those who make it to the annual round of meetings and parties= at London Metal Exchange Week, which starts Monday.=20 In what is expected to be a much smaller group of delegates than usual, con= versations will be dominated by fears of global recession smothering alread= y-lousy demand, the increasingly pressing need for production cuts, and the= exit of several important participants from the metals business. Cuts in companies' travel budgets and fears of flying are keeping many of t= he usual attendees away from London this year, dealers and analysts said.= =20 "Sentiment is going to be bearish, and we've just heard in the past few day= s of people who were previously going to come along not coming, largely on = their companies' advice," said Adam Rowley, an analyst at MacQuarie Bank in= London.=20 Indeed, a representative at another major bank said fully half of the guest= s expected at its satellite activities have canceled.=20 Forecasts for base metals demand and average prices have been widely revise= d downward in the past few weeks, particularly since the impact of the Sept= . 11 terror attacks accelerated the world economic slowdown.=20 Just this week, Standard Bank ratcheted its expectations lower, with LME ca= sh copper - a bellwether for the complex that's especially sensitive to ind= ustrial productivity - seen at $1,350 a metric ton in December 2001, down f= rom an actual year-to-date average in 2001 of $1,619/ton.=20 Producers are reluctant to cut copper output, and declining Chinese imports= and weak demand in the west mean there is still further downside potential= for copper, Standard Bank analyst Robin Bhar said.=20 With demand for base metals slumping so sharply, eyes have been turning to = the producers to make moves on the supply side.=20 In copper, analysts say U.S. producers are the most likely to cut back, as = the recent strength in the dollar hits their bottom line the hardest. Howev= er, a recent slump in energy prices has kept the wolves from the door so fa= r for some producers in an industry that's energy-intensive.=20 Elsewhere, zinc is suffering from a supply glut that recently pressured the= LME three-month price to a 17-year low of $766 a metric ton.=20 The troubles of Australian zinc producer Pasminco Ltd. (A.PAS) will surely = be a hot topic, following the company's move to voluntary administration du= e to its large debt load, dealers said.=20 But aside from all the market concerns, the most worrisome topic will likel= y be the recent succession of companies bailing out of or reducing their co= mmitment to the metals business, market participants said.=20 In the past week, N.M. Rothschild & Sons Ltd. quit the base metals business= and ScotiaMocatta - the metals trading arm of the Bank of Nova Scotia (T.B= NS) - removed itself from open-outcry ring trade at the LME. Earlier this m= onth, Enron Metals said it would cut staff by 10%-20% in Europe, and all th= ese moves follow Mitsui Bussan Commodities Ltd. ditching its market-making = activities in the metals business earlier this year.=20 Who's next?=20 "It could be anyone," is the refrain from nearly all market participants su= rveyed.=20 -By Mark Long, Dow Jones Newswires; +44 (0)20 7842 9356; mark.long@dowjones= .com Copyright ? 2000 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. =09 HC to hear DPC's plea 10/19/2001 The Times of India Copyright (C) 2001 The Times of India; Source: World Reporter (TM) MUMBAI: The Bombay high court will, on December 11, begin hearing a petitio= n filed by Enron-promoted Dhabol Power Company (DPC), challenging the juris= diction of the Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission (MERC) to adju= dicate the US-based multinational's dispute with Maharashtra State Electric= ity Board (MSEB).=20 A division bench headed by Justice Ajit Shah decided to hear the matter at = a stretch for a week beginning from December 11. The court permitted MERC m= embers P. Subrahmanyam and Venkat Chary to be impleaded as respondents. The= y have been asked to file affidavits by November 9. The multinational power giant had levelled certain allegations of bias agai= nst an MERC member Jayant Deo. Mr Deo urged the court that he would like to= recluse himself from the proceedings.=20 DPC was allowed to amend its main petition in view of the allegations level= led against Mr Deo and were asked to amend it within week.=20 In his affidavit replying to allegations of bias by the DPC, Mr Deo said he= was neutral in his stand as a MERC member.=20 The court has made it clear that when the hearing in the case commences, tw= o intervening parties, US Exim Bank and a consortium of 11 offshore lenders= of DPC would not be allowed to make any pleadings. The court, however, sai= d they would be permitted to assist the court by making oral submissions. Copyright ? 2000 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. =09
|