|
|
Enron Mail |
Yes. I believe that is correct. I will review the documents with regards to
true assignment to a third party beyond assigning to an affiliate. But the transaction was structured to give Enron complete commercial flexibility with regards to restructuring or renegotiating the contracts. The sale is a bit more than a restructuring but the remedy is likely to be the same. Either Enron will retire the outstanding amounts under the monetization or give an indemnity for any losses associated with the transfer. The banks will likely accept either. Could you give me an idea of when the actual sale (cash changing hands) would likely take place. If we close with conditions precedent that are not likely to be met before 2001, I am less concerned about the negative funds flow issue of prepaying the financing. Regardless, I would imagine the outstanding amount under those contracts is getting quite small through five years of amortization. Thanks. Dan J Hyvl 09/06/2000 05:41 PM To: , Joseph Deffner/HOU/ECT@ECT, Anne C Koehler/HOU/ECT@ECT, Barbara N Gray/HOU/ECT@ECT cc: Subject: Monetized Contracts Joe, Yesterday when we talked, I noted that Enron is considering selling certain pipeline and contract assets, certain of which contracts may have been previously monetized. This is to confirm that the contracts which were monetized as a part of CASH II, being the contracts with Union Carbide, Texas Utilities Fuel Company and Southern Union Gas Company, and the two contracts with Entex, a division of Noram Energy Corp. (now Reliant Energy Entex, a division of Reliant Energy Resources Corp.) could, if necessary, be assigned to an Enron subsidiary and that subsidiary could be sold to a third party without necessarily having to unwind the prior monetizations. Please advise if this is not correct? I will notify you with the specific contract information if these contracts are included in any sale to a non Enron entity.
|