|
|
Enron Mail |
No on #1. Yes on #2. One thing we may want to add in light of #2 is a
confidentiality agreement so that Jung Ho doesn't find out about the settlement. "Bill W. Ogden" <bogden@ogwb.com< 08/18/2000 02:12 PM Please respond to bogden To: "Richard Sanders" <richard.b.sanders@enron.com< cc: "Mike Miller" <mike.j.miller@enron.com<, "Dorfman, Grant" <GDorfman@ogwb.com<, "Bob Virgo" <robert.p.virgo@enron.com< Subject: Natole I have spoken with Kirk Fulk for IBC, who has no changes of substance to the settlement agreement. I also spoke with Tom Deen, who wants to send revisions after Natole has read the document, which Natole can't do now because he's travelling. Deen says they will want at least 2 changes of substance: 1. Natole is asking for an indemnity from Enron and IBC for anyone who claims through them. I told him this was not something we had talked about before, and I wasn't sure how Enron would react to it, but my own reaction was negative because Enron had no claims back against Natole (other than financial offsets) so I fail to see why it's necessary. IBC is a different matter because IBC filed a counterclaim against Natole. 2. Deen wants the Natole indemnity to be capped at the amount of settlement. In other words, Natole indemnifies Enron & IBC from claims by Jung Ho (or others) only to the extent of $385,000. This again is not what we talked about, but as a practical matter I'm not sure how much difference it makes. Everyone seems to view the likelihood of further claims as remote. Let me know your thoughts, and I'll forward any further proposals when I get them. Best regards, Bill Ogden
|