|
|
Enron Mail |
file it but check w/Carl Ekland at Leboef in Denver to make sure we
understand the risk "Ronald Carroll" <rcarroll@bracepatt.com< 04/05/2001 11:00 AM To: <david.meyer@avistacorp.com<, <nolan.steiner@avistacorp.com<, <rich.stevens@avistacorp.com<, <dvermillion@avistaenergy.com<, "Andrea Settanni" <asettanni@bracepatt.com<, "Dan Watkiss" <dwatkiss@bracepatt.com<, "Kimberly Curry" <kcurry@bracepatt.com<, <GFergus@brobeck.com<, <andrzej_kabarowski@cargill.com<, <psteele@coral-energy.com<, <rreilley@coral-energy.com<, <cyoder@enron.com<, <jhartso@enron.com<, <michael.tribolet@enron.com<, <richard.b.sanders@enron.com<, <Ebiery@fulbright.com<, <fyanney@fulbright.com<, <tfreiberg@fulbright.com<, <jfrizzell@gibbs-bruns.com<, <sbishop@gibbs-bruns.com<, <CEKLUND@LLGM.COM<, <DWHITLEY@LLGM.COM<, <EHUFF@LLGM.COM<, <JKLAUBER@LLGM.COM<, <JRNELSON@LLGM.COM<, <gerspamer@mofo.com<, <kirvin@mofo.com<, <kzeitlin@mofo.com<, <Pmar@mofo.com<, <rloeffler@mofo.com<, <jmcgrane@morganlewis.com<, <mgriffen@morganlewis.com<, <bcurrey@omm.com<, <jstamper@omm.com<, <mawilliams@omm.com<, <john.fryer@PacifiCorp.com<, <hydeefeldstein@paulhastings.com<, <Timothy.Bolden@pinnaclewest.com<, <dmperlman@powersrc.com<, <rosteen@powersrc.com<, <hao@quinnemanuel.com<, <dgarber@sempra.com<, <wdsmith@sempra.com<, <rbeitler@sempratrading.com<, <PARAMFJORD@stoel.com<, <rcjosephson@stoel.com<, <SJKAPLAN@stoel.com<, <awells@strook.com<, <ayudkowsky@strook.com<, <cfr@vnf.com<, <gdb@vnf.com<, <hes@vnf.com<, <jrr@vnf.com< cc: <Andrew.Haller@PacifiCorp.com< Subject: Chargeback Complaint Case PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT As many of you probably know by now, our chargeback case is scheduled for next week's FERC agenda. Thus, if its not too late already, it is imperative that we file our answer to the PX's answer ASAP. In this regard, no party filed a reply yesterday in opposition to the PX's motion to the bankruptcy court to lift the automatic stay. It is my understanding that a proposed order is circulating among applicable bankruptcy counsel. If all counsel sign today, the PX intends to file it with the court tomorrow and we could conceivably get an order from the court tomorrow modifying the stay. I am advised, however, that if not all counsel are available to sign the proposed order today, the PX intends to simply file the proposed order with the court tomorrow. In this event, under local rules, the court must wait seven days before entering an order modifying the stay. Of course, this will be after FERC's meeting next week. Assuming that an order is not issued tomorrow, the question for the group is whether we should file our answer tomorrow in any event. The theory would be that since the debtor itself sought to modify the stay so as to permit litigation of the chargeback proceeding to continue, no party opposed the motion, and the debtor filed a proposed order with the court to modify the stay, any violation of the automatic stay would be technical at best, and unlikely to be raised by the PX in the bankruptcy proceeding. (This argument would be enhanced if the PX requests the court, when it eventually enters its order, to do so retroactively to April 6). I would like to hear from the parties (including bankruptcy counsel) whether they endorse or oppose this approach. Thanks. Ron P.S. if you are aware of any members of our group that have been left off this email, please let me know.
|