|
|
Enron Mail |
Mark/Bryan
Based on our meeting with Sullivan & Cromwell, a few points occur to me (these may well be in the "obvious" category!) we generally don't need to worry at all about non-energy reference credits, since we won't have any confidential info about them (this group will over time become the vast majority) there are (as I understand it) about 200 energy reference credits we are looking at and this class (unlike the non-energy credits) is unlikely to grow substantially of the 200 energy credits, a number should be definite "ins" (eg the high profile, big players with whom we don't have a special relationship) and a number will be "outs" (ie where the relationship is much too close to risk quoting on them) perhaps we could initially launch the product with the "ins" and, over time, add the residual category who get the all clear. I agree that evaluating our relationships with individual reference entities may be tricky and time consuming. Perhaps the best place to start might be with the business person who has overall responsibility for the relationship in question and should have a view on the nature of the relationship and whether we have any info about the entity which is sensitive. It may well be that we have confidentiality agreements in place, but not much confidential info passing under them. Grateful for any views on this. Paul To: Bryan Seyfried/LON/ECT@ECT cc: Mark E Haedicke/HOU/ECT@ECT, Louise Kitchen/LON/ECT@ECT, Paul Simons/LON/ECT@ECT Subject: Re: Consent Apparently there was some miscommunication. It was very clear to me after our meeting in Louise's office that with respect to proposed Reference Entities with which Enron has an existing business relationship you were going to add the consent to the notice letter. It was that consent that was to dramatically speed up the process of determining which Reference Entities could be listed. As we discussed last week, without that consent each proposed Reference Entity must be evaluated separately regarding whether or not a confidentiality agreement is in place and whether or not the existing business relationship is extensive enough to require consent. Neither of these evaluations will be easy or quick. While Enron North America has been reasonably good about compiling lists of confidentiality agreements, it is by no means clear that all other Enron entities have done so. We have not yet determined a process for evaluating the extent of the existing business relationships with our customers but that process will necessarily require significant amounts of legal and commercial time at a high enough level to make important judgment calls. My impression was that you were willing to add the consents to the notice letters since in one fell swoop it resolved a difficult legal issue and moved your earliest possible launch date forward by weeks if not months but also on the assumption that if a customer was not willing to give us their consent we should not be taking the commercial risk that it was precisely those customers whose relationships would be jeopardized by proceeding to use them as a Reference Entity. We will now move forward to develop the processes necessary to conduct the evaluations mentioned above. Please send the list of proposed Reference Entities as soon as possible. Bryan Seyfried 01/19/2000 06:35 AM To: Mark Taylor/HOU/ECT@ECT, Louise Kitchen/LON/ECT@ECT cc: Paul Simons/LON/ECT@ECT Subject: Consent Just to clarify, we do not intend to ask for consent from every reference credit, we do intend to send introductory letters to the relevant parties at the initial set of reference credits which notifies them of our intentions and why it is good for them. My hope is that there are very few reference credits that we need to get consent from and then we can make the commercial decision of whether it is better to get consent or not quote on them. As an initial step, I think we need to understand which reference credits have confidentiality agreements in place and determine those names that we have a potential fiduciary responsibility. The latter obviously will not be black and white but hopefully we can make some progress. I would expect that are really deep relationships are likely to be with either really small counterparties or a very small subset of our large counterparties. Hopefully I am restating what everyone already thought but if not apologies for the miscommunication. Call me if you want to discuss further. bs
|