|
|
Enron Mail |
PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL: ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATION, ATTORNEY WORK
PRODUCT David, This will summarize our telephone conference of today's date. I understand that you had an extensive and interesting conference with Matt and Neale Gregson of Watson, Farley's Singapore office. While you are still wading through a great deal of new information, I understand your preliminary views to be as follows (subject to your further review): 1. You feel comfortable with using Captain Richard Gregory of Noble, Denton's Singapore office as one of ECT's experts, so long as he does the work himself. You are going to do some additional investigation with Neale of Dr. Eric Mullen of Burgoyne's, who would be acting as ECT's chemist, given that his background may primarily be in fire investigation. If you decide to use someone other than Dr. Mullen, please give me your recommendation as soon as possible, so that we can make sure that our "first team" of experts is available to attend the joint survey/analysis. Please also let me know as soon as you hear for when it will be scheduled. 2. You felt that our case against Mitsubishi would be very dependent on the exchanges between ECT and Mitsubishi regarding tank cleaning, along with interpretation of various charter party clauses. While Matt will correct me if I am wrong, I believe that Eric Tan was ECT's "point man" on those negotiations. Perhaps Matt could liaise with you to set up a joint telephone conference with you, Neale, Matt and Eric on the line to flange down exactly what Eric recalls having happened. I do not know whether Eric was also involved in negotiating the charter party terms, but if he was, that makes him an even more important witness. Matt, may I leave this with you to set up? 3. You preliminarily felt that, as Neale recently suggested, ECT may have a case against the ultimate owners of the vessel that may not be subject to the charter party terms. This is based on the applicable B/L,, which you have not yet had a chance to review, but which you were told the Master signed on his own behalf (rather than on behalf of Mitsubishi). If you recommend that ECT pursue the owners, then ECT will need to seize the vessel and obtain a letter of undertaking from its P&I club. Ultimately, ECT would then proceed with litigation, probably in the jurisdiction where the seizure took place, or, if the parties agreed, by arbitration. This would be separate and apart from arbitration against Mitsubishi. Meanwhile, I authorized you to proceed with retaining a ship tracking service to locate the vessel. I await your formal recommendation as to whether we should seize the ship, and the particulars regarding local counsel and expected costs. 4. You will send a draft statement of ECT's position to Matt to forward to Mitsubishi, to the effect that ECT feels it owes Mitsubishi nothing for the additional freight or demurrage, given that it was all caused by contamination of the cargo onboard the ship. I will ask for authority for you to send this to Mitsubishi and revert as soon as I can. 5. You are reviewing the FGPC/ECT contract and surrounding circumstances and will provide us your views in due course. Many thanks for your help. Regards, Britt Davis
|