|
|
Enron Mail |
Richard, I hope you are checking your emails. Here is Howard's thinking. Is your opposition based on the view that, at this time, no action should be taken against SCE or on the view that maybe action is ok, but it should be handled other than by Kaye, Scholer?
"This e-mail, including attachments, contains information that is confidential and it may be protected by the attorney/client or other privileges. This e-mail, including attachments, constitutes non-public information intended to be conveyed only to the designated recipient(s). If you are not an intended recipient, please delete this e-mail, including attachments, and notify me by return mail, e-mail or at (insert your telephone number). The unauthorized use, dissemination, distribution or reproduction of this e-mail, including attachments, is prohibited and may be unlawful. J. Robert Nelson 725 Soth Figueroa St, Los Angeles, Ca. 90017-5436 ============================================================================== This e-mail, including attachments, contains information that is confidential and may be protected by the attorney/client or other privileges. This e-mail, including attachments, constitutes non-public information intended to be conveyed only to the designated recipient(s). If you are not an intended recipient, please delete this e-mail, including attachments, and notify me. The unauthorized use, dissemination, distribution or reproduction of this e-mail, including attachments, is prohibited and may be unlawful. ============================================================================== Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Received: from securemail1.llgm.com ([10.4.218.42]) by llgm.com; Mon, 27 Aug 2001 13:52:07 -0400 Received: from 216.230.64.13 by securemail1.llgm.com with SMTP ( Tumbleweed MMS SMTP Relay (MMS v4.7)); Mon, 27 Aug 2001 13:54:04 -0400 X-Server-Uuid: 2ddd99fc-ca0e-11d4-9906-00508bdcbe76 Received: (qmail 23475 invoked from network); 27 Aug 2001 17:48:09 -0000 Received: from 216.198.76.235.cypresscom.net (HELO HWEG) (216.198.76.235 ) by relay2.cypresscom.net with SMTP; 27 Aug 2001 17:48:09 -0000 Return-Receipt-To: "Howard J. Weg" <hweg@pgwlaw.com< From: "Howard J. Weg" <hweg@pgwlaw.com< To: "'ROBERT NELSON'" <JRNELSON@LLGM.COM< cc: richard.sanders@enron.com Subject: RE: Arbitration Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2001 10:47:15 -0700 Message-ID: <002001c12f20$67293fa0$0304afc0@HWEG< X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <sb8a43fe.023@llgm.com< X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.3018.1300 X-WSS-ID: 179456B62100172-01-01 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Disposition: inline Bob, there is so much happening in Sacramento and Wash DC that impacts the decision about Edison that I really need an opportunity to bring you and Richard up to speed. That cannot happen during a full Committee call. There have been several separate conference calls organized by Reliant to advocate the involuntary petition, which is, I think, fraught with legal, economic and political peril (especially sanctions, damages, etc. because the claims are subject to bona fide dispute by and large, as you know). Most others (Dynergy, Duke etc) seem to agree with me on the involuntary. The Cal legislature is pushing hard on a bill, now supported by Gov Davis and Edison, that specifically refuses to fund repayment of the energy seller's claims while paying the banks and QFs. We need a measured and prompt message to deliver to the Gov, Edison and Legisl before they pass a bill that calls for financing other claims that may not happen (even at the lower number without sellers' claims) if the consequences are that the cloud of an involuntary or litigation or arbitration will scare the underwriters of the bonds away in any event. Of course, some could argue that the Gov, Legisl and Edison are doing this on purpose to provoke the involuntary or litigation so that when Edison goes into chapter 11 they can say the blood is on the gouging sellers' hands not on theirs. Or, that may be giving all those "D" students more credit than they deserve. I don't know. Please forward this email on to Richard and others at Enron as appropriate. Please also let me know when Richard is available for a separate discussion on this and related matters. I know he is busy on many other things. -----Original Message----- From: ROBERT NELSON [mailto:JRNELSON@LLGM.COM] Sent: Monday, August 27, 2001 9:59 AM To: hweg@pgwlaw.com Subject: RE: Arbitration I'm around but Richard is in South America. He's going to try and hook into the conference call on Thursday, however. Richard seemed to have several problems with the idea of making a demand at this time. Like Reliant, he wanted to be sure that he had carefully thought through all the possible implications of making a demand as it would bear on the FERC proceedings, actions by individual participants and possible bankruptcy. He also wasn't sure whether he supported current committee counsel leading the charge but no firm thoughts on that point. He also was not inclined to draw the line in the sand until he saw what comes out of the legislature. Richard seems to have some overarching concerns about overlawyering which I suppose are understandable given the number of counsel that just Enron is supporting. We obviously need to consider how the committee discharges its fiduciary duties in the most efficient and cost effective manner. I Richard's point is that there are a bunch of other lawyers who already are actively involved in things, I guess we need to consider whether the committee can use them to represent the collective interests of all participants. Bob "This e-mail, including attachments, contains information that is confidential and it may be protected by the attorney/client or other privileges. This e-mail, including attachments, constitutes non-public information intended to be conveyed only to the designated recipient(s). If you are not an intended recipient, please delete this e-mail, including attachments, and notify me by return mail, e-mail or at (insert your telephone number). The unauthorized use, dissemination, distribution or reproduction of this e-mail, including attachments, is prohibited and may be unlawful. J. Robert Nelson 725 Soth Figueroa St, Los Angeles, Ca. 90017-5436 ============================================================================ == This e-mail, including attachments, contains information that is confidential and may be protected by the attorney/client or other privileges. This e-mail, including attachments, constitutes non-public information intended to be conveyed only to the designated recipient(s). If you are not an intended recipient, please delete this e-mail, including attachments, and notify me. The unauthorized use, dissemination, distribution or reproduction of this e-mail, including attachments, is prohibited and may be unlawful. ============================================================================ ==
|