|
|
Enron Mail |
As for the email on Risk Memos: I thought it looked good and is very
appropriate. I did note that there were 4 categories for low risk jurisdictions, and only 3 categories for each of medium and high risk jurisdictions. Maybe we cannot have a "no legal" risk in a high risk jurisdiction; but what about "many significant" legal issues in a medium risk jurisdiction? Is this then too many categories? Also, would it make any sense to have ratings of 1 through 4 only, with a requirement to specify whether we are dealing with a low, medium or high risk jurisdiction? In other words, could anyone be confused into believing that a rating of 4 is better than a rating of a 5? As currently set forth, a higher rating does not necessarily equate to a greater risk. Unless a reader were very familiar with the rating scale, someone might interpret a low number, out of say 10, as having minimal risk, when ratings 4, 7 and 10 may actually be the "worst". As for the OGC and Legal Committee: I note only that Dan and Lisa would no longer be on the LC. How do you think we would convey this to them? Also, I was understanding that Stuart would start to be included. I have also been asked recently where Randy Young technically fits within the system. He is on the OGC, but I am still confused where he is technically on some organization chart. Thanks. Lance. W. Lance Schuler Enron North America Corp. 1400 Smith Street, EB 3826 Houston, Texas 77002 Phone: 713/853-5419 Fax: 713/646-3393 Email: lance.schuler-legal@enron.com
|