|
|
Enron Mail |
Richard, earlier today I spoke with Barry Friedberg, Schultes' New York
counsel to get some idea of what areas Schultes' Ohio counsel would be interested in during tomorrow's discussion.? Friedberg explained that the Ohio counsel are "classic plaintiff's lawyers" - they are not that familiar with the issues and will tend to ask broad generalized questions.? Friedberg also noted that they may be unaware that Enron is a defendant in the two California actions and will likely be unaware that Enron is the only defendant who has not cross-complained against Schultes. For purposes of insuring that any deposition testimony in the Ohio case is not used against any defendant in the bondholders' litigation,? Friedberg thought it would be a good idea to try a limit any discussion to post-closing events and, more specifically, whether Enron personnel were privy to any discussions with SDI or McDonald regarding (1) the decision to fire Schultes, (2) Schultes' alleged dishonesty and (3) Schultes' alleged incompetence.? Friedberg explained that Busse's defenses to the defamation and wrongful termination claims are (1) that he did not make any defamatory statements and (2) if he did, they were true.? The problem with the second defense is that it may affect our defenses in the bondholders' litigation.? If Enron or others were aware that Schultes was dishonest or incompetent it will be important to know when and how they learned of such information.? Ideally, they learned it after the closing and only through discussions between McDonald and SDI. This e-mail message may contain legally privileged and/or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient(s), or the employee or agent responsible for delivery of this message to the intended recipient(s), you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please immediately notify the sender and delete this e-mail message from your computer.
|