|
|
Enron Mail |
The City alleges that we have breached by failing to pay for our share of the gas which they procured in order to run the plant. Approx $1.5 mm.
Stuart -----Original Message----- From: Mann, Kay Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2001 12:52 PM To: Clark, Barton; Keenan, Jeffrey Cc: Zisman, Stuart Subject: RE: Austin Energy At the risk of asking a stupid question, are we in breach under the project agreement? I didn't comb it, but I also didn't see anything that screamed breach to me. If we have a paid up call on 100 MW, that is probably something we would want to preserve. More to consider! Kau -----Original Message----- From: Clark, Barton Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2001 11:42 AM To: Keenan, Jeffrey Cc: Mann, Kay Subject: RE: Austin Energy For now, Kay and I both will be working on this. I learned this am that the desk has a power deal with City of Austin that is in default ( not involving the LCRA hedge), so it may be beneficial to think about some kind of global workout with the City involving the $$ owed, the 8% interest held by Sandhill and the obligations under the power deal. When I have some time to read the project documents, and you get your info, all three of us should meet to formulate a response to the City's letter. -----Original Message----- From: Keenan, Jeffrey Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2001 11:13 AM To: Zisman, Stuart Cc: Clark, Barton Subject: Austin Energy Stuart: Here is my shot at your memo. I will have the accounting spreadsheet from Theresa Vox today. Jeffrey << File: Sandhill Memo Keenans makup to Zisman.doc <<
|