|
|
Enron Mail |
I got your copy kicked back to me for some reason.
---------------------- Forwarded by Michelle Blaine/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT on 01/31/2001 09:01 AM --------------------------- Michelle Blaine 01/31/2001 08:53 AM To: Ken Blades/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT cc: "Williams, Justin" <justin.williams@Linklaters.com< @ ENRONRichard Sanders, Bruce Lundstrom/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Robert C Williams/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT Subject: RE: United India - strictly confidential and privileged I think Justin answered your question about governing law and the first arbitration hearing and I am going to find out from Atul about whether Indian law governs these policies since Indian law requires us to have an Indian fronting policy. On another issue that came up on the call this morning Ken, I was asking Justin about governing law specifically because I wanted to know if there was any law (India or English) requiring insurers to disclose information regarding risk to the insured, so we could cite some law perhaps to compel Beachcrofts to hand over the Liburdi report. For example, the Texas insurance code has evolved from a vague "duty of good faith & fair dealing" standard in some instances to specific laws preventing insurers from doing certain things detrimental to the insured. Justin tells me English law, in this regard, consists only of precedential case law, but it still could be helpful. Because of the commercial risk (outside the ambit of arbitration in the instance) it might be worthwhile to consider going into the London Commercial Court to seek some sort of extraordinary relief to prevent United India from withholding this information which is critical to running these machines. If, in fact, there truly is a 50% chance of failure in these machines, yet they won't share that evidence with us, this is a commercial risk DPC can't afford, regardless of coverage and apart from the arbitration. (I'm wearing my commercial hat instead of my legal hat today). Although Justin expressed concern about jurisdiction, United India did us the favor of bringing suit in London Commercial Court earlier, and thus having availed itself to the courts and having Peter Hirst's emphatic witness statement that makes a compelling case for the court to take jurisdiction, I think it is worth considering if they continue to refuse to give us the report in response to Justin's latest correspondence. I don't think we can afford to sit on our hands on this one. Why don't you and Neil kick this around, (since you don't have enough to do already). Cheers, Michelle Ken Blades 01/30/2001 08:42 PM To: Michelle Blaine/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT cc: "Williams, Justin" <justin.williams@Linklaters.com< @ ENRON Subject: RE: United India - strictly confidential and privileged I assume governing law is an issue that would be raised at the initial procedural hearing. If this is something that we're serious about then we ought to get after it immediately. Michelle Blaine 01/30/2001 11:15 PM To: "Williams, Justin" <justin.williams@Linklaters.com< @ ENRON cc: Ken Blades/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT Subject: RE: United India - strictly confidential and privileged No wonder I couldn't remember the governing law! Yes that is a good idea to determine which law is more favorable to our position. Let's mention that to Ken tomorrow as we may want to have Atul Rajadhyaksha look at that for us. I think originally we discussed that notion but its been a long time ago. Thanks Justin, Michelle "Williams, Justin" <justin.williams@Linklaters.com< on 01/30/2001 09:11:26 AM To: "'Michelle.Blaine@enron.com'" <Michelle.Blaine@enron.com< cc: "Heneghan, Diane" <diane.heneghan@Linklaters.com< Subject: RE: United India - strictly confidential and privileged Michelle, I know the problem about cases and clauses running together! The position on the insurance is that it does not specify a governing law. On an application of English private international law (ie conflict of laws rules) there is uncertainty whether it would be English or Indian law. At para 42 of Hirst's statement, he says that the contracts are impliedly subject to English law (based on London as the arbitration forum?). Certainly, my preference in terms of certainty would be English law. However, it is possible there could be an advantage to Indian substantive law and once we get UI's statement of claim, we should give thought to whether it would be worthwhile getting Indian law input on whether there could be advantage in arguing Indian law. I will ask Diane to add this to the "to do" list! Justin -----Original Message----- From: Michelle.Blaine@enron.com [mailto:Michelle.Blaine@enron.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2001 4:55 PM To: justin.williams@linklaters.com Subject: Re: United India - strictly confidential and privileged Looks good to me Justin. Justin is there any law that governs an insurer's duty to disclose information regarding the risk insured? What law governs the insurance contract? ( I should know that ,but all my cases and arbitration clauses are beginning to run together in my mind...). "Williams, Justin" <justin.williams@Linklaters.com< on 01/30/2001 05:45:31 AM To: "'Michelle.Blaine@enron.com'" <Michelle.Blaine@enron.com< cc: "'Ken.Blades@enron.com'" <Ken.Blades@enron.com< Subject: United India - strictly confidential and privileged <<010125_JOWW_let_Beechcroft.doc<< Michelle, I attach a revised version of the Liburdi request/quantum letter to Beachcrofts, amended to take in some points made by Ken as to the agreement on quantum. It would be great if you were able to look through this today and let me have your comments in order that I can get it out. Do give me a call if you need to discuss. Justin Justin Williams Linklaters, London a member firm of Linklaters & Alliance Tel: (+44) 20 7456 4334 Fax: (+44) 20 7456 3929 justin.williams@linklaters.com http://www.linklaters.com http://www.linklaters-alliance.com Go to www.linklaters.com/disputetoolkit - for free litigation and arbitration advice ____________________________________________________________ This message is confidential. It may also be privileged or otherwise protected by work product immunity or other legal rules. If you have received it by mistake please let us know by reply and then delete it from your system; you should not copy the message or disclose its contents to anyone. ____________________________________________________________ (See attached file: 010125_JOWW_let_Beechcroft.doc)
|