Enron Mail

From:brent.hendry@enron.com
To:stephanie.panus@enron.com
Subject:FW: Revised Loss Definition.DOC
Cc:
Bcc:
Date:Tue, 2 Oct 2001 13:16:12 -0700 (PDT)

Please forward this on. Thanks.

-----Original Message-----
From: =09Hendry, Brent =20
Sent:=09Friday, September 21, 2001 2:25 PM
To:=09'kimberly.donohue@saccapital.com'
Cc:=09Taylor, Mark E (Legal); Rohauer, Tanya
Subject:=09FW: Revised Loss Definition.DOC

Kim,=20

I have reviewed the language your counsel sent and have discussed it with o=
ur General Counsel. We can agree to remove the loss of bargain concept but=
not the other two damage concepts. We do not agree to the removal of "cos=
t of funding" since this can be a very real issue when a replacement transa=
ction requires a premium to be paid because of the off-market position. Pr=
emiums for such positions will have a cost of funding component. The remov=
al of the concept of "loss or cost incurred as a result of terminating, liq=
uidating, or obtaining or reestablishing a hedge or trading position" is al=
so a very real factor in calculating damages. It may very well be that the=
termination of a hedge is the more cost effective alternative to replacing=
the transaction. Furthermore, the you can obtain the same effect of termi=
nating a hedge by entering into an offsetting transaction (the equivalent o=
f a replacement transaction) rather than an outright termination with the h=
edge counterparty. Because the termination of a hedge is the other side of =
the coin, so to speak, it makes sense to leave it in the definition of Loss=
. We can clarify that such losses and costs are without duplication, which=
I think was one of your outside counsels concerns. The definition of Loss=
as was written is designed so that the Non-defaulting party can recover th=
e actual damages occasioned by the Defaulting Party's failure to perform. =
If the Defaulting Party objects to the Non-defaulting Party's calculation t=
hen such calculation would be subject to negotiation or litigation and fina=
l determination by a New York court. =20

We would propose modifying your changes to read as follows:=20

Insert the following into Part 1(e), after the period at the end thereof. =
=20

"The definition of Loss shall be amended and restated in its entirety as fo=
llows:=20

"Loss" means, with respect to this Agreement or one or more Terminated Tran=
sactions, as the case may be, and a party, the Termination Currency Equival=
ent of an amount that party reasonably determines in good faith and in a co=
mmercially reasonable manner its total losses and costs (or gain, in which =
case expressed as a negative number), without duplication, in connection wi=
th this Agreement or that Terminated Transaction or group of Terminated Tra=
nsactions, as the case may be, including any cost of funding or, at the ele=
ction of such party but without duplication, loss or cost incurred as a res=
ult of its terminating, liquidating, obtaining or reestablishing any hedge =
or related trading position (or any gain resulting from any of them). to =
be equal to the actual replacement cost to that party in entering into a re=
placement transaction. Loss does not include any loss of bargain, cost of =
funding or, loss or cost incurred as a result of its terminating, liquidati=
ng, obtaining or reestablishing any hedge or related trading positions. Fu=
rthermore, Loss does not include loss of bargain, or a party's legal fees =
and out-of-pocket expenses referred to under Section 11. A party will dete=
rmine its Loss as of the relevant Early Termination Date, or, if that is no=
t reasonably practicable, as of the earliest date thereafter as is reasonab=
ly practicable. A party may (but need not) determine its Loss by reference=
to quotations of relevant rates or prices from one or more leading dealers=
in the relevant market."


If the concept of a Replacement Value is preferable to you we are also wil=
ling to use the following definition, which was originally drafted by Goldm=
an Sachs, in lieu of the Loss definition.
=20
"Replacement Value" , means, with respect to each Terminated Transaction or=
group of Terminated Transactions, as the case may be, and a party, an amou=
nt that the party (the "Determining Party") or its agent determines in good=
faith and in a commercially reasonable manner to be its total losses and c=
osts (or gains, in which case expressed as a negative number) in connection=
with that Terminated Transaction or group of terminated Transactions. A D=
etermining Party (or its agent) may determine Replacement Values for all Te=
rminated Transactions, any group of Terminated Transactions or individual T=
erminated Transactions, and may apply different valuation methods to differ=
ent Transactions or groups of Transactions. A Determining Party (or its a=
gent) will determine Replacement Values for all Terminated Transactions as =
of the Early Termination Date, or, if that would not be commercially reason=
able, as of the latest date or dates before or the earliest date or dates a=
fter the Early Termination Date as would be commercially reasonable under t=
hen prevailing circumstances.

The definition of Loss would be replaced throughout the ISDA by the definit=
ion of Replacement Value. =20

We hope that one of these definitions will work for you. Please call if yo=
u have any questions or comments on the definitions.

Regards,
Brent