|
|
Enron Mail |
Please print the attachment. Thank you.
-----Original Message----- From: Walls Jr., Rob Sent: Monday, April 16, 2001 2:05 PM To: Derrick Jr., James Subject: FW: Termination Roadmap Jim - Although this is a first draft, it will give you some indication of the relative strengths and weaknesses of our legal claims for termination as they exist today. This is something you should read. Thanks. Rob -----Original Message----- From: "Fuji, Hiroko" <hiroko.fuji@linklaters.com<@ENRON [mailto:IMCEANOTES-+22Fuji+2C+20Hiroko+22+20+3Chiroko+2Efuji+40linklaters+2Ecom+3E+40ENRON@ENRON.com] Sent: Friday, April 13, 2001 6:40 AM To: Lundstrom, Bruce; lbrasher@skadden.com; Katwala, Sandeep; Walker, Christopher; Walls Jr., Rob; Kraske, Paul; Mathis, Robert; Brownfeld, Gail; Chin, Julia H.; Jose.ibieta@gecapital.com; bgordon@ben.bechtel.com; rlnelson@thelenreid.com Cc: Salt, Stuart; Gewirtz, Jeremy Subject: Termination Roadmap Please find attached a first draft of the "Termination Roadmap" memo setting out the various options for DPC in relation to the commencement of the termination process and the choices it faces having initiated the process. I am circulating this as a preliminary draft to lawyers only in the first instance, in the knowledge that it probably needs to be refined (and abbreviated) before it goes to wider circulation. Please note also that it has been prepared without the benefit of having seen the Godbole Committee Report (now out and on sale on the streets of Bombay). From a commercial point of view, of immediate interest is the analysis in relation ot the decision on whether or not to complete the construction of Phase II and whether or not to continue operation of the plant. On both counts we identify significant risks to DPC of ceasing construction / operation and we really should consider the overall termination strategy in the round before decisions on this front are taken, however obvious the answers may seem to be from a purely financial point of view. The note is limited to the process under the PPA and coes not consider, for instance, the influence of Lenders on the process or the role of the LNG suppliers. It also ignores MetGas. I am happy to expand the note to cover these aspects, and certainly in relation to the Lenders' position would need and welcome Lance's collaboration. Finally, I am also sure that changes will be necessary to take on board the views of Gail and Christopher in relation to how the arbitration proceedings would progress in parallel with the termination process. Part of what I have written is based on discussions with Chris, but he has not yet had an opportunity to look through the note itself having been preoccupied with getting Notices of Arbitration out, and I would expect further changes once he has had an opportunity to do so. regards, Jonathan Jonathan Inman Partner Linklaters, Tokyo a member firm of Linklaters & Alliance Telephone: +813 3568 3801 Group 3 fax: +813 3568 3888 Group 4 fax: +813 3568 3444 jonathan.inman@linklaters.com <http://www.linklaters.com/<; <http://www.linklaters-alliance.com/< <<010413_Termination Options.doc<< Hiro Fuji Linklaters, Tokyo Phone +81 3 3568 3854 (direct) ____________________________________________________________ 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. ____________________________________________________________ - 010413_Termination Options.doc
|