|
|
Enron Mail |
Thanks for the red-line version. Here are my comments:
? In paragraph 10.1, a triggering event would allow close out netting of all transactions under this agreement and any other agreements between the parties. And then in paragraph 10.4, it retiturates this point and expands on it by bringing in all amounts owed by all affiliates of both parties. This is pretty vague. Historically, only amounts owed by the defaulting party to that of the non-defaulting party and its affiliates have been included. Can we combine the effect of this within a single paragraph. That way, we're not speaking of the same issue within two different sections. ? In paragraph 10.1, cross-default seems a bit vague. What I was trying to say was, "If any indebtedness in excess of $50MM and $100MM, resepctively have become or is capable of becoming accelerated" and then expressly define indebtedness to include all borrowed monies, accounts payable, and financial deriviative transactions. Without expansion, i believe indebtedness is typically meant to include only bank debt. ? If we made them reference Utilicorp United, Inc. as a specified entity, then we could tie all terms, conditions, and support back to them indirectly. Could we take a look at amending the contract to accomplish this. It would really strengthen the contract. ? I am surprised they did not tie any guaranty support from Enron Corp. to this contract. They missed this one. ? I am ok with the 2 day LC turn around under a triggering event, although I do not like item c - "be unable to pay its debts as they fall due" - I would like to strike this line. thats it. I am available for a confernce call should they desire to speak on this further. thanks brant -----Original Message----- From: Hyvl, Dan Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2001 5:36 PM To: Reves, Brant Subject: RE: EnergyOne << File: 2001-007ctr.doc << Brant Reves/ENRON@enronXgate 05/29/2001 05:31 PM To: Dan J Hyvl/HOU/ECT@ECT cc: Sylvia S Pollan/ENRON@enronXgate Subject: RE: EnergyOne Do you have a redline version of our initial contract to them? I never saw my comments included in a draft... thanks brant -----Original Message----- From: Hyvl, Dan Sent: Monday, May 21, 2001 9:59 AM To: Reves, Brant Cc: Pollan, Sylvia S. Subject: EnergyOne Brant, EnergyOne has responded to the requested changes. They agree to the revision of the MAC language but threw in a money wrench by adding a warm and fuzzy triggering event if a party refused to provide security within 48 hours of a reasonable request therefore. No standard is provided as to the reason for the request. They also deleted the original Collateral Threshold language which was in their first draft. Please respond to these matters to me and to Sylvia Pollan. ----- Forwarded by Dan J Hyvl/HOU/ECT on 05/21/2001 09:47 AM ----- Dan J Hyvl 05/21/2001 08:59 AM To: Sylvia S Pollan/Enron@EnronXGate cc: Subject: EnergyOne Attached is a memo of the major items in their comments to our requested changes. Let me know when you are ready to discuss. << File: 2001-035memo.doc <<
|