|
|
Enron Mail |
Do you want to handle this, or do you want me to?
=20 -----Original Message----- From: Davis, Britt=20 Sent: Monday, August 27, 2001 4:43 PM To: Edison, Andrew Cc: Lachner, George R.; Henking, Paul; Zikes, Becky; Dingeldein, Wietze Subject: RE: "SANTA CLARA" This is one of Richard's; you are not having a senior moment. I fi= gured that it would probably get passed to you, and ask if you wouldn't min= d checking on that with Richard. If you keep reading down this list of e-m= ails, you will see my blurb on the facts. =20 Parenthetically, I have been told by Bob Lachner today that Wietze= Dingeldein, Enron's internal demurrage expert in the U.K., has at my reque= st recently reviewed Clyde & Co.'s file. I assume he will be reporting in = due course on his analysis. Bob has contacted Jackie Travis, who is still = looking to see if there are any old files that may be of some use to Paul H= enking. Parenthetically, for Paul's benefit, Andrew Bicknell of Clyde & Co= . is in fact the U.K. solicitor in charge of the case. =20 Please let me know if you will in fact be the person to whom I sho= uld report. =20 Britt -----Original Message----- From: Edison, Andrew=20 Sent: Saturday, August 25, 2001 5:29 PM To: Davis, Britt Subject: FW: "SANTA CLARA" I am getting old. My memory has failed. What is this dispute? Have I hea= rd of it before? -----Original Message-----=20 From: Henking, Paul=20 Sent: Tue 8/21/2001 2:08 AM=20 To: Davis, Britt; Dingeldein, Wietze=20 Cc: Rogers, Daniel R.; Carrier, Lee; Sanders, Richard B.; Edison, Andrew; Z= ikes, Becky; Carrier, Lee; Lachner, George R.=20 Subject: RE: "SANTA CLARA" britt,=20 i do recall this incident but not in much detail. i think there was also a = counter claim from enron based on the fact the ship could not have loaded t= he cargo (ie, it was not capable of cooling the cargo - misrepresented by e= xmar) as well as a claim for some excess tug charges (don't recall what tha= t was about). in the end, the amounts of the two claims offset or almost of= fset thus our position of dropping the matter. seemed to recall we had a pretty fair arguement in our position but not sur= e where all the docs are now. this was in legal for some time in that i thi= nk shawn hall or marty penkwitz started the counter. think steve lovelady w= as also involved and even seem to recall clyde and co were involved. by copy, bob, would appreciate if you could check with jackie travis whethe= r she has a listing of the files i sent to storage. there may be some info = contained there that might help.=20 best i can do without reviewing the files to see if can recall more.=20 rgds=20 -----Original Message-----=20 From: Davis, Britt=20 Sent: 20 August 2001 22:30=20 To: Dingeldein, Wietze=20 Cc: Rogers, Daniel R.; Henking, Paul; Carrier, Lee; Sanders, Richard B.;=20 Edison, Andrew; Zikes, Becky; Carrier, Lee=20 Subject: RE: "SANTA CLARA"=20 Dear Wietze,=20 I greatly appreciate your help on this. I await your comments.=20 Britt=20 P.S. to Dan: given that Exmar's solicitors just got word that Exmar is not= willing to do a drop-hands on this at this time, I am not inclined to go b= ack to them unless, for instance, we get some new information from Wietze t= hat really helps us. If, however, you believe that the business relationsh= ip with Exmar, either now or in the future, is such that we need to strike = while the iron is hot, please let me know. P.S. to Paul: Can you e-mail me and let me know whether this matter rings = a bell?=20 -----Original Message-----=20 From: Dingeldein, Wietze=20 Sent: Friday, August 17, 2001 8:07 AM=20 To: Davis, Britt=20 Subject: RE: "SANTA CLARA"=20 Dear Britt,=20 Just a short note to let you know that I will give Andrew a call on his ret= urn to the office on Monday to make arrangements to go over his file. As so= on as I have concluded my review, I will inform you of my findings. Best regards, Wietze=20 -----Original Message-----=20 From: Davis, Britt=20 Sent: 06 August 2001 18:23=20 To: Wendy.Labuda@clyde.co.uk=20 Cc: Sanders, Richard B.; Edison, Andrew; Carrier, Lee; Zikes, Becky;=20 Rogers, Daniel R.; Henking, Paul; Dingeldein, Wietze=20 Subject: RE: "SANTA CLARA"=20 Dear Andrew:=20 Thanks for the information from Exmar. Wayne Perry, our chief business con= tact with Exmar, recently went on consultant status. I will find out (Dan,= can you help?) who the relationship contact will be going forward and see = if that person has any cause for optimism.=20 You confirmed that no hearing had been set in this very old maritime arbitr= ation, which arises out of the loading in Houston, Texas almost ten years a= go of the SANTA CLARA. The ship had been chartered by ELFI from Exmar to l= oad a cargo of propane. Loading was delayed and less than the full contrac= tually-committed amount of propane could be loaded. We believe that this w= as because the ship had to take so much time to cool off its tanks to compr= ess the propane, even though the propane was delivered at the contractually= -required temperature. Exmar apparently takes the position that this was c= aused by the lack of back pressure from the shore tanks. In any case, Exma= r reportedly billed ELFI about $165,000 in demurrage as a result. Part of t= his was apparently deadfreight, a charge by the ship for ELFI not having av= ailable all the product that the ship was supposed to load. To add insult = to injury, ELFI also paid off another ship that was in line to get the SANT= A CLARA's berth, so that the SANTA CLARA could continue loading and sail wi= thin its window of opportunity. Based on the foregoing, I understand that = ELFI has a counterclaim of about $150,000. You advised that recoverable interest would probably increase the principal= of both claims by about 70%.=20 You advised that you would send me information regarding your firm's time i= n this case to date. You advised that you estimated ELFI spending an addit= ional 25,000-30,000 pounds in this matter, assuming that the arbitration la= sted two days, and that under the normal U.K. arbitration rules, the loser = would be responsible for the arbitrators' fees and expenses and opposing co= unsel's fees and expenses. You did not agree with Exmar's proposal to try = this matter solely on the documents, given the fact issues as to what cause= d the delay in loading, although this would reduce trial costs. As I mentioned, I am by copy of this e-mail asking Wietze Dingeldein, Enron= 's U.K. demurrage expert, to give you a call upon your return August 20 and= take a look at your file and give his comments as to the strength of the d= emurrage claim (Wietze, I am thinking particularly about any time-bar argum= ents, but any ammunition you can give us would be helpful). Both you and W= ietze may want to consider whether the condition of the ship invalidates th= e NOR under the Glencore Grain v. Flacker Shipping (HAPPY DAY) decision. I am also asking Paul Henking, who now works in ENA's Singapore office, if = he was involved in fixing this ship and remembers anything about it. I appreciate your help.=20 Britt=20 P.S. to Richard/Andy E.: which of you should I be reporting to on this one= ?=20 -----Original Message-----=20 From: Wendy.Labuda@clyde.co.uk [ <mailto:Wendy.Labuda@clyde.co.uk<]=20 Sent: Monday, August 06, 2001 10:41 AM=20 To: Davis, Britt=20 Cc: Sanders, Richard B.; Edison, Andrew; Carrier, Lee; Zikes, Becky=20 Subject: "SANTA CLARA"=20 Dear Britt=20 "SANTA CLARA"=20 Thanks for your e-mail of 11th July and I apologise for the slow response.= =20 As you know we have suggested to Exmar's lawyers, that in the light of the= =20 underlying commercial relationship the parties should consider a=20 straightforward drop hands settlement.=20 We have recently finally heard from our opponents who say that whilst they= =20 are keen to maintain a good commercial relationship with Enron "they=20 nevertheless do wish to obtain an award on this matter."=20 They have, however, suggested that in order to reduce costs, the parties=20 proceed with a documents only arbitration.=20 Whilst, Exmar's solicitors are correct in suggesting this would lead to a= =20 significant saving in costs, I do not consider we should agree to this and= =20 that we should have an oral hearing of about 2 days. I say this because I= =20 think there is a much better prospect of explaining to the arbitrators that= =20 this is not a straightforward demurrage dispute, if we present our evidence= =20 by way of Counsel's submissions and expert evidence.=20 I would, however, welcome your views on this.=20 I will be out of the office from close of business today until 20th August= =20 and I have arranged to discuss this matter further with Exmar's solicitors= =20 on my return.=20 Kind regards.=20 ANDREW BICKNELL=20 **********************************************************************=20 This e-mail and any attachments are confidential and may also=20 be privileged. If you are not the named recipient, please notify=20 the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any=20 other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information.=20 In the event of any technical difficulty with this e-mail, please contact= =20 the sender or the Clyde & Co IT Department on +44 (020) 7623 1244.=20 Clyde & Co=20 51 Eastcheap, London, EC3M 1JP=20 Tel: +44 (020) 7623 1244, Fax: +44 (020) 7623 5427=20 Clyde & Co Guildford=20 Beaufort House, Chertsey Street, Guildford GU1 4HA=20 Tel: +44 (0) 1483 555 555, Fax: +44 (0) 1483 567 330=20 E-Mail: postmaster@clyde.co.uk, Internet: <http://www.clydeco.com<;=20 **********************************************************************
|