|
|
Enron Mail |
FYI.
Congrats on your new baby! Kay ---------------------- Forwarded by Kay Mann/Corp/Enron on 06/06/2000 10:25 AM --------------------------- Enron North America Corp. From: Kay Mann 06/06/2000 03:58 AM To: Steve Irvin/HOU/ECT@ECT, Peggy Banczak/HOU/ECT@ECT, Jeff Blumenthal/HOU/ECT@ECT, rstevens@bracepatt.com cc: Subject: RE: Letter agreement Here's the latest from GE. When I spoke to Rob Stevens, he had a question about whether Mitsui needed to review the final drafts of the GE agreements. I don't know the resolution of that issue. As you know, the current arrangement with GE requires payment within 3 days of signing of the contracts, which means we have to be prepared to assign the contract, then wire the money from EEIM to Mitsui immediately so that Mitsui can pay GE, and GE can refund ENA. Has EEIM been funded yet and has Mitsui bought in on the payment plan? I do not know the status of the tax issues raised by Jeff. I would also like to make sure that Jeff agrees with the mechanism of superseding the prior agreement with GE. Kay ---------------------- Forwarded by Kay Mann/Corp/Enron on 06/06/2000 09:54 AM --------------------------- jeffreye.smith@ps.ge.com on 06/06/2000 09:47:54 AM To: Kay.Mann@enron.com cc: jeffreye.smith@ps.ge.com, Brian.D.Barto@enron.com, karl.siverling@ps.ge.com, David.K.Bargainer@enron.com, john.schroeder@ps.ge.com Subject: RE: Letter agreement Kay, I'm faxing to you the documents highlighted in RED, below. So, it looks like we need to supercede these documents, along with the assignment and assumption agreement. I believe the entities I mentioned yesterday are still applicable. If you have a different opinion, let me know. Give me a call at 518-385-7722, and let's get the documents in condition to be signed today or tomorrow. Regards, Jeff Smith -----Original Message----- From: Kay.Mann@enron.com [mailto:Kay.Mann@enron.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2000 3:44 AM To: karl.siverling@ps.ge.com Cc: Kay.Mann@enron.com; jeffreye.smith@ps.ge.com; Brian.D.Barto@enron.com; karl.siverling@ps.ge.com; David.K.Bargainer@enron.com; john.schroeder@ps.ge.com Subject: RE: Letter agreement Thank you. That would be helpful. Kay karl.siverling@ps.ge.com <mailto:karl.siverling@ps.ge.com< on 06/06/2000 07:28:24 AM To: Kay.Mann@enron.com <mailto:Kay.Mann@enron.com< , jeffreye.smith@ps.ge.com <mailto:jeffreye.smith@ps.ge.com< cc: Brian.D.Barto@enron.com <mailto:Brian.D.Barto@enron.com< , karl.siverling@ps.ge.com <mailto:karl.siverling@ps.ge.com< , David.K.Bargainer@enron.com <mailto:David.K.Bargainer@enron.com< , john.schroeder@ps.ge.com <mailto:john.schroeder@ps.ge.com< , jeffreye.smith@ps.ge.com <mailto:jeffreye.smith@ps.ge.com< Subject: RE: Letter agreement The "MOU" consists of the GE proposal #80518 w/ offer letter of August 12, 1998, and J.M. Bollinger's (President, Cogen Tech) acceptance letter of August 14, 1998. These letters set the framework of the agreement, including payment / termination schedule. Invoicing & payments began in September, 1998..and have continued on that basis until each of the individual contracts for Linden & "Midwest" were consummated. In Dec., 99, at Enron's request,we allocated funds paid to date to Linden and the "third unit". We'll forward copies of above. Karl Siverling -----Original Message----- From: Kay.Mann@enron.com <mailto:Kay.Mann@enron.com< [mailto:Kay.Mann@enron.com] <mailto:[mailto:Kay.Mann@enron.com]< Sent: Monday, June 05, 2000 6:27 PM To: jeffreye.smith@ps.ge.com <mailto:jeffreye.smith@ps.ge.com< Cc: Brian.D.Barto@enron.com; <mailto:Brian.D.Barto@enron.com;< Kay.Mann@enron.com; <mailto:Kay.Mann@enron.com;< karl.siverling@ps.ge.com; <mailto:karl.siverling@ps.ge.com;< David.K.Bargainer@enron.com; <mailto:David.K.Bargainer@enron.com;< john.schroeder@ps.ge.com; <mailto:john.schroeder@ps.ge.com;< jeffreye.smith@ps.ge.com <mailto:jeffreye.smith@ps.ge.com< Subject: RE: Letter agreement The collective memory at ENA is that there wasn't an MOU per se, just the assignment and assumption agreement. Kay jeffreye.smith@ps.ge.com <mailto:jeffreye.smith@ps.ge.com< on 06/05/2000 03:51:46 PM To: Brian.D.Barto@enron.com <mailto:Brian.D.Barto@enron.com< , Kay.Mann@enron.com <mailto:Kay.Mann@enron.com< cc: karl.siverling@ps.ge.com <mailto:karl.siverling@ps.ge.com< , David.K.Bargainer@enron.com <mailto:David.K.Bargainer@enron.com< , john.schroeder@ps.ge.com <mailto:john.schroeder@ps.ge.com< , jeffreye.smith@ps.ge.com <mailto:jeffreye.smith@ps.ge.com< Subject: RE: Letter agreement Brian, I spoke to Karl today, and we tried to find the "MOU". All we have found was the "Assignment & Assumption Letter" you mention. In that document, the Enron and GE entities were; Enron Capitol & Trade Resources Corp. and General Electric Company, respectively. Regards, Jeff Smith -----Original Message----- From: Brian D Barto [mailto:Brian.D.Barto@enron.com] <mailto:[mailto:Brian.D.Barto@enron.com]< Sent: Monday, June 05, 2000 12:45 PM To: Kay Mann Cc: karl.siverling@ps.ge.com; <mailto:karl.siverling@ps.ge.com;< David K Bargainer; John.Schroeder@ps.ge.com; <mailto:John.Schroeder@ps.ge.com;< Jeffreye.smith@ps.ge.com <mailto:Jeffreye.smith@ps.ge.com< Subject: RE: Letter agreement I have a copy of the "Assignment and Assumption Letter" where GE agreed that Cogen Technologies could assign the rights to purchase the Units to Enron Capital and Trade Resources, Corp. The initials at the ECT signature block is Doug Pedigo's. I have always been a little confused when Karl Siverling talks about voiding an MOU, because I do not remember ever seeing an MOU for the Cogen Tech units. Perhaps we could ask Karl to send us a copy of the document he intends to void to make the process easier.
|