|
|
Enron Mail |
Vicki, how much $$ are we talking about for the bankruptcy and the class
action suit? It does not seem inappropriate for us to share the bankruptcy costs given the CTC issue. I agree with you on the class action suit. Lets discuss further before we approach ENA. Regards Delainey ---------------------- Forwarded by David W Delainey/HOU/ECT on 02/20/2001 07:43 PM --------------------------- From: Vicki Sharp@EES on 02/20/2001 05:01 PM To: Janet R Dietrich/HOU/ECT@ECT, David W Delainey/HOU/ECT@ECT cc: Subject: California bankruptcy expenses I would like some guidance about outside counsel fees related to the California situation. We ( EES and ENA) retained joint counsel in early January. As you may recall, in January a substantial amount of work was done with the attempted rescue effort by the US Department of Treasury, and the managing down of the trading positions with PG&E's unregulated entity. I would say that EES and ENA have used this counsel relatively equally, and it would not be inappropriate to split the bills on a 50/50 basis. However, there are two other issues that we should consider: (a) on an overall basis, I would say that ENA will have more issues that will come out of the bankruptcy, and (b) certainly, they will be easier able to absorb as a company the increased legal expenses. Please let me know whether we should go forward with the 50/50 arrangement or whether we should adopt another approach. One other fact: We also have joint representation in the class action lawsuits filed against the power marketers. To date, no sharing has been agreed to, based on EES' position that in is improperly named in the lawsuit (i.e., it is not a participant in the wholesale markets and did not benefit from the volatility this summer).
|