|
|
Enron Mail |
Attached please find a memo prepared by the Barreras, Siqueiros y Torres
Landa firm concerning the Amparo proceeding in which Enron Energia Industrial de Mexico, S. de R.L. de C.V. is an interested party. This memo reinforces the opinion previously provided by the Lopez Velarde firm. Should you have any questions or comments, please advise. ----- Forwarded by Peggy Banczak/HOU/ECT on 11/20/2000 09:41 AM ----- "Eduardo Siqueiros T." <est@bstl.com.mx< 11/15/2000 09:47 PM To: peggy.banczak@enron.com cc: Subject: Enron Energia Induistrial de Mexico Dear Peggy: In furtherance to our telephone conversation, please find below brief analysis of the amparo claim submitted by Consorcio Desarrollo Economico Mexicano, S.A. de C.V. ("Consorcio")which you have the concern may affect the standing of permits granted to Enron Energia Induistrial de Mexico, S.A. de C.V. ("Enron"). The main arguments presented by Consorcio in its amparo complaint seeks to challenge the constitutionality of certain legislation, including regulations under which permits are granted for generation of electricity. ?Further, Consorcio challenges the actions of the Energy Regulatory (Commission Comision Reguladora de Energia) insofar as it granted a permit to Enron and other entities, despite the fact that Consorcio had submitted an application earlier in 1999. ?The challenge is also directed against action of the Federal Electricity Commission (Comision Federal de Electricidad) and Luz y Fuerza del Centro, for executing a Supply Agreement with the permit holders. The claim of amparo is in our belief deficient, and so is their initial request to be granted a suspension of effects during the judicial process. It is important to point out that the amparo claim is filed against laws and actions of authorities, and not against private entities or actions of private entities. From the documents reviewed, Enron filed a brief as third interested party affected (tercero perjudicado) whereby it essentially presented the argument that Consorcio could not avail itself of the protection of amparo, to the extent that it had already consented to the validity of regulations at the time it filed itself for an application to be awarded a permit for generation of electric energy. In its ruling of September 29th 2000, the Second District Court for Administrative Matters for the Federal District rejected the claim for procedural grounds (sobreseimiento), withouit examining the merits of the claim, insofar as it determined that there were several causes therefor, including, but not limited to the fact that the claim against certain authorities was inapplicable. ?It also indicated that the nature of the permits executed by the Energy Regulatory Commission should be deemed as actions among private entities. ?We believe this last aspect is incorrect, although we believe there were ample causes for denial of the amparo, even though the District Court did not examine the merits of the complaint. The District Court did not therefore consider the arguments submitted on behalf of Enron. Consorcio thereafter appealed through a procedure of review (recurso de revisi?n), challenging that the District Court failed to identify CFE and Luz y Fuerza del Centro as authorities, even though they had powers enacted as authorities. ?It did not, however, address the issue outlined by the District Court on whether the permits were of a private nature. Enron filed through its local counsel a new brief identifying the failure by Consorcio to identify actions which affect its rights as required under Mexican Amparo Law, while it insisted on the fact that Consorcio had consented to the law. In light of the above, we believe there are scarse opportunities for the appeal (revisi?n) to be successful, because even though the Collegiate Circuit Court were to deem that the District Court failed to examine certain issues and decided to examine the merits of the claim, the arguments and purported legal rights affected which were claimed by Consorcio should not be deemed to be valid. If you would like any clarification to the above, we will gladly oblige. Regards, Eduardo Siqueiros Barrera, Siqueiros y Torres Landa est@bstl.com.mx =========================================================== This e-mail is private and confidential and contains information intended only for the use of the person named above. ?If the recipient of this message is not the one intended, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. ?If you have received this document in error, please send it to postmaster@bstl.com.mx immediately. ?Thank you.
|