|
|
Enron Mail |
RW, which London QC would represent us? JVD
Jim Derrick -----Original Message----- From: Harris, Stephanie J <Stephanie.Harris@ENRON.com< To: Derrick Jr., James <James.Derrick@ENRON.com< Sent: Tue Oct 02 11:49:02 2001 Subject: FW: DPC -- London Commercial Court Filing -----Original Message----- From: Bruce.Lundstrom@enron.com@ENRON Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2001 11:44 AM To: Rob.Walls.enronXgate@enron.com; Cline, Wade; Ben.Glisan.EnronXGate@enron.com; James.A.Hughes.EnronXGate@enron.com Cc: Harris, Stephanie J Subject: DPC -- London Commercial Court Filing Folks - We had a lawyer conference call today to discuss the prospect of filing a suit in London Commercial Court to enjoin the GOM from trying to file a suit in India to void the GOM Guarantee and State Support Agreements. Chris Walker, local counsel, GE and Bechtel support filing the suit. Other than Jim McCartney, the Enron representatives support filing the suit. In the end, Jim McCartney defers to Chris Walker's judgment. Filing suit in London has some risks. We are uncertain of the response of the India Supreme Court, the GOM and the current GOM/DPC arbitration panel. The Supreme Court may take offense to the filing (although Chris thinks that this risk is small). In a perverse way, our filing in London could further induce GOM to file in India (although we believe that they will in any event). The current arbitration panel may use this as an opportunity to wait until the underlying DPC/MSEB dispute is decided (although Chris doubts it). My understanding is that Enron commercial supports the filing of the suit. It is scheduled to be filed on Friday. If any of you would like to revisit the issue before Friday, please let me know. Bruce
|