|
|
Enron Mail |
Please print the messages below. Thank you. -----Original Message----- From: Rob Walls <rwallsjr@yahoo.com<@ENRON [mailto:IMCEANOTES-Rob+20Walls+20+3Crwallsjr+40yahoo+2Ecom+3E+40ENRON@ENRON.com] Sent: Sunday, April 08, 2001 6:24 PM To: Derrick Jr., James Subject: Fwd: Re: Dabhol Power Project - MSEB and GOM Arbitrations Note: forwarded message attached. Do You Yahoo!?Yahoo! Mail Personal Address - Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail. X-Apparently-To: rwallsjr@yahoo.com via web12601.mail.yahoo.com X-Track: 1: 40 Received: from outbound5.enron.com (EHLO postmaster.enron.com) (192.152.140.9) by mta225.mail.yahoo.com with SMTP; 08 Apr 2001 09:49:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailman.enron.com (mailman.enron.com [192.168.189.66]) by postmaster.enron.com (8.10.1/8.10.1/external_corp-1.08) with ESMTP id f38GnY622448 for <rwallsjr@yahoo.com<; Sun, 8 Apr 2001 11:49:34 -0500 (CDT) Received: from nahou-msmsw01px.corp.enron.com ([172.28.10.37]) by mailman.enron.com (8.10.1/8.10.1/corp-1.05) with ESMTP id f38GnWL20615 for <rwallsjr@yahoo.com<; Sun, 8 Apr 2001 11:49:32 -0500 (CDT) Received: from ene-mta01.enron.com (unverified) by nahou-msmsw01px.corp.enron.com (Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.1.5) with ESMTP id <Tac1c0a2512652ca226b5a@nahou-msmsw01px.corp.enron.com<; Sun, 8 Apr 2001 11:49:31 -0500 Subject: Re: Dabhol Power Project - MSEB and GOM Arbitrations To: christopher.walker@linklaters.com Cc: Sandeep.Katwala@enron.com, Rob.Walls@enron.com, rwallsjr@yahoo.com From: Bruce.Lundstrom@enron.com Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2001 11:49:28 -0500 Message-ID: <OF0E3BF496.C761722D-ON86256A28.005B9664@enron.com< X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ENE-MTA01/Enron(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 04/08/2001 11:45:34 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Length: 3905 Christopher - I agree with your observations. It seems to me that we want to consolidate our Dec/Jan/Good Interest into one arbitration against each of MSEB and GOM, rather than separate the claims further and thereby encourage MSEB/GOM to cure some claims (e.g., Dec/Good Interest) and leave the January claim hanging out there alone. I understand your issues with rag-tag but am assuming that the rag-tag label does not apply to Good Interest. Thanks, Bruce "Walker, Christopher" <christopher.walker@linklaters.com< on 04/08/2001 06:44:19 AM To: "'Bruce.Lundstrom@enron.com'" <Bruce.Lundstrom@enron.com<, "Walker, Christopher" <christopher.walker@linklaters.com< cc: Sandeep.Katwala@enron.com, Rob.Walls@enron.com Subject: Dabhol Power Project - MSEB and GOM Arbitrations Bruce, I think that part of the plan discussed in London has simply been superceded by events. In particular,the corporate decision about what the end game and desired end result are to consist in. Accordingly,I now look upon the proposed GOM and MSEB arbitrations as primarily a means of setting up the case for PPA termination in due course. In the light of this:- (1) The MSEB arbitration ought now to deal with misdeclaration and claim payment of the January 2001 billing,as well as the December 2001 billing. I expect that we shall also put in the subsequent misdeclaration episodes. I see little value in putting in the older claims (i.e., the arrears and sums withheld),mainly because Kelly Quinn's analysis of them tends to show that many of DPC's claims are dud. (2) There is no longer any useful purpose served in stripping the MSEB arbitration down to misdeclaration only. Further,not merely I am more convinced than I was that the MSEB was not entitled to withhold against the December 2000 billing,but I think that DPC has a 50:50 case that the MSEB was obliged to pay the January 2001 billing clean. (3) As I see it,there will be two arbitrations against GOM (the SSA and the Guarantee) and one against the MSEB. However,if we wish to harass the GOM and set up further PPA termination grounds,we might well wish to do something forceful and litigious when (as I confidently predict) the notice under the escrow agreement is not responded to by the MSEB and the Indian banks. The notice only really works as and when the Indian banks are threatened. -----Original Message----- From: Bruce.Lundstrom@enron.com [mailto:Bruce.Lundstrom@enron.com] Sent: Sunday, April 08, 2001 7:12 PM To: cwalker@linklaters.com Cc: Sandeep.Katwala@enron.com; Rob.Walls@enron.com Subject: MSEB and GOM Arbitrations Christopher - Help me to understand the plan for the MSEB and GOM arbitrations for December, January and Interest. In how many pieces do we anticipate submitting these arbitrations? What strategy is behind the submission of separate submissions? I remember that we wanted to separate the MSEB January submission, at one point, to hasten the disposition of the misdeclaration issue. Does this make sense given the events of the last few weeks and the sponsors' sentiments about additional capital for the project? Thanks, Bruce _____________________________________________________________ This e-mail is sent by or on behalf of Linklaters, 10/F Alexandra House, Chater Road, Hong Kong. A list of the firm's principals will be provided to the recipient(s) of this email upon request. This statement is made in compliance with the Law Society of Hong Kong's Practice Direction on the Format of Electronic Communications. This message is confidential. It may also be privileged or otherwise protected by work product immunity or other legal rules. If you have received it by mistake please let us know by reply and then delete it from your system; you should not copy the message or disclose its contents to anyone. _____________________________________________________________
|