|
|
Enron Mail |
Rose and I have reviewed the contract Peter sent to us yesterday - the draft
distributed on April 24. Rose has already provided our comments to Peter on the Override Letter which accompanies the contract. I have one big issue which the lawyers can't answer as it is a business decision. No one seems sure if Bill is the acting originator for this contract or not. I leave it up to the LV Cogen Origination team to decide. However, until I receive word back from the appropriate person and see my changes reflected in the turbine contract, Finance has not signed off on this agreement so it cannot be executed on E-Next's behalf. What is the per UNIT turbine purchase amount? The Purchase Amount is a remaining total balance outstanding. In 6.1.2 Payment Schedule, the payment amount is a lump sum. However, in the 2nd para. of 5.4 Cancellation and in 6.1.3 Retention Letter(s) of Credit for example, each UNIT is discussed. There needs to be an allocation of the Purchase Amount and Payment Amount on a per turbine basis so Finance can track these costs as such in case a change order is made to only one turbine or if a turbine is removed from E-Next prior to all turbines being removed. Also, how does anyone know for 6.1.3 when the last $788,500 per Turbine is supposed to be paid so we can retain it? Also, I would appreciate receiving a clarification of why we don't define the Purchase Amount as the total and not just the balance remaining. It could create discrepancies in the document and for anybody reading the document trying to understand how much each turbine costs. E-Next has already made the approx $10mm payments made to-date. However, if someone were to pick up the document to find out how much they could buy the turbines for, it would appear to be $53.6mm not the Maximum Liability Amount of $63.1mm. 2nd para of 5.4 refers to the portion of the Purchase Amount to be adjusted upon cancellation. However, Exhibit I Cancellation refers to the Unit Liability Amount as the basis for calculation - this seems inconsistent to me. Now for the general comments: Section 1.69 and 1.70 need to change places to be alphabetically correct. 6.1.2 calls for a payment to be made on April 21, 2001. Exhibit I Cancellation also has a line for cancellation between March 21 and April 20, 2001. This will need to be amended as this payment wasn't made given no contract execution yet. As everyone knows also, E-Next must be the party to make this payment to insure the correct accounting treatment. 6.5 is another place where a per Unit price is discussed for increases or decreases. How is this possible with an aggregate Purchase Amount? In all Notice sections please delete "c/o Las Vegas Cogeneration II, L.L.C." This project is not associated with the E-Next financing. 10.2.3.1 Please underline "Optional Delivery Point" 10.12.2 Please delete the " ' " in "it's" after the proviso. 10.15 The timing of 120 days for delivery of serial numbers herein is inconsistent with the bracketed 5 months in 10.2.1 and Exhibit P. Please conform all to the same time frame. Has David Marshall reviewed all the insurance provisions of this document. While a standard turbine contract, there have been some recent modifications/views from our insurance providers. I look forward to hearing back from the deal team and reviewing the next round of documents.
|