|
|
Enron Mail |
I was unaware that this was on the table for discussion in World Hunger.
My recollection is that Mike Barnas proposed the changes to 20.2 (b), which addresses indemnity for fines and penalties (who can forget the cognizant government?). We agreed to narrow GE's exposure by specifically relating the indemnity obligation to a violation of section 3.8, as opposed to the broader provision in prior contracts. From: Scott Dieball@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT on 05/21/2001 09:10 AM To: Kay Mann/Corp/Enron@ENRON cc: Bill Williams/PDX/ECT@ECT, John G Rigby/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, John Schwartzenburg/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, pthompson@akllp.com, Roseann Engeldorf/Enron@EnronXGate@ENRON, Sheila Tweed/HOU/ECT@ECT Subject: Re: Arcos- World Hunger- LOL fines carve out. Steve knows I am pissed about this and in our Arcos meeting I brought up the same point raised by Kay below. Steve claims that the no cap on gov. violations was rejected some time ago by GE mana. when Barnas presented to them an update of the "end world hunger". Steve also thinks that they had told us previously about this change. ( Is this true???) I told him it was news to me and that I would have thought that if true, then GE would have (a) highlighted the changes on the draft contract and/or (b) added it to the list of outstanding issues. When asked to explain the rationale for changing their position on this issue, Steve was unable to give an answer other than to say GE mana. had said that they needed to cap their liability at the contract price for gov. violations although they thought GE could live with no cap on FCPA violations. Kay Mann@ENRON 05/18/2001 01:14 PM To: John G Rigby/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT cc: Sheila Tweed/HOU/ECT@ECT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, pthompson@akllp.com@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Roseann Engeldorf/Enron@EnronXGate, Scott Dieball/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Bill Williams/PDX/ECT@ECT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, John Schwartzenburg/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT Subject: Re: Arcos- World Hunger- LOL fines carve out. Did Steve S ask that it be added to the list? I would let them bring it up if he didn't. We spent quite a bit of time and effort on the LOL clause, and it was subject to lots of give and take. Kay John G Rigby@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT 05/18/2001 07:03 AM To: Sheila Tweed/HOU/ECT@ECT, Kay Mann/Corp/Enron@ENRON, pthompson@akllp.com, Roseann Engeldorf/Corp/Enron@ENRON cc: Scott Dieball/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Bill Williams/PDX/ECT@ECT, John Schwartzenburg/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT Subject: Arcos- World Hunger- LOL fines carve out. GE has informed us during the Arcos discussion that GE senior management has directed that the GE deal team cannot agree to allowing GE indemnity obligations related with government fines for failure to comply with law to be exclude from the limit of liability. This needs to be added to Pete T's World Hunger Punchlist of issues. Enron Arcos deal team has not agreed to GE's position.
|