|
|
Enron Mail |
I never did anything to follow up on this. Do I need to?
Barton Clark 09/07/2000 09:19 PM To: Richard B Sanders/HOU/ECT@ECT cc: Subject: Arbitration Provision In a development agreement for a power plant in Connecticut, I have included what I believe to be our standard ENA arbitration/damages limitation provision, that contains a provision stating that ENA and counterparty shall each designate an arbitrator, " who need not be neutral", within 30 days after receiving notification of the filing for the demand for arbitration. The originators on the transaction are adamantly opposed to the quoted language because it is "not standard" ENA arbitration language, is an affront to our counterparty, and "could screw up the transaction" if I insist leaving it in the document. I have pointed out it is applicable to our and our counterparty's designee, and is intended to ensure we get at least one sympathetic or at least knowledgeable participant on the panel that could be persuasive to the panel as a whole. I also said I thought the deletion of the quoted language would give the counterparty the right to challenge a "non-neutral" designee under the rules of the AAA and throw the whole designation process up in the air ( I'm not sure that is right). Given the strident objections, do you think we materially prejudice our rights by removal of the quoted language, and if so, can you give me some greater ammunition to use with my originators? Thanks for your assistance.
|