|
|
Enron Mail |
Sorry for the overreaction on Fri. I was having a very bad hair day. It see=
ms like no harm, no foul. I need you to keep your finger on the pulse on th= is issue. I called Zach Starbird( Mirant) about the issue and he was surpri= sed that Mirant had voted in favor. Can you call Brian Holman and see where= they stand. If you know any of the other attys well enough, please call th= em and lobby them also.I am in South America this week, but would like to b= e on the conf. call thurs. Can you make sure I have the #s. With respect to the PX settlement, I am an unenthusiastic supporter. Please= let me know if the proposal changes. -----Original Message----- From: =09"ROBERT NELSON" <JRNELSON@LLGM.COM<@ENRON [mailto:IMCEANOTES-+22RO= BERT+20NELSON+22+20+3CJRNELSON+40LLGM+2ECOM+3E+40ENRON@ENRON.com]=20 Sent:=09Friday, August 24, 2001 3:45 PM To:=09Sanders, Richard B. Cc:=09Ceklund@llgm.com Subject:=09PX Committee Richard, sorry about the mix up. The damage has been undone with a call to= Weg and Cohen changing our vote to a loud no. I apologize. I really don'= t want to be out in front of the client, particularly in a case in which I = myself cringe at the creative ways lawyers are coming up with to keep thems= elves busy. When I couldn't reach you before the committee conference, I c= alled Lisa to ascertain whether she still was in the PX loop. We talked ab= out the committee call. She actually participated for the first few minute= s to express her view that our committee should not be filing in formal mot= ion to expand the PG & E committee. We briefly discussed the arbitration i= ssue, and she did not appear adverse to commencement of the arbitration. M= aybe that wasn't formal clearance to vote. Lesson learned. I want to avoi= d any such problem in the future. Unless I hear otherwise from you, on sub= stantive issues I won't vote until I clear positions with you personally. = However, we have to find a better way for me to get your take on particular= points because they will continue to arise as Weg and Cohen (not to mentio= n other attorneys who participate on the committee) urge the committee to t= ake actions in the interest of discharging our fiduciary duty. Case in poi= nt, the Weg settlement. Have you decided whether to withdraw the approval = you previously communicated. If it would help the communication, I'm perfe= ctly willing to talk with you evenings or weekends. Then again, you wife m= ight react like mine if her privacy at home is interrupted. In any event, = assuming that Enron wants to stay on the committee, probably a good idea ju= st to reign in the lawyers, let me know how we can most effectively communi= cate so that I know your position and can convey it when you are not availa= ble for a call. Incidentally, with you impending trip, feel free to call m= e over the weekend at 626-683-7644 if you want to discuss this further. Bo= b "This e-mail, including attachments, contains information that is confident= ial and it may be protected by the attorney/client or other privileges. Th= is e-mail, including attachments, constitutes non-public information intend= ed to be conveyed only to the designated recipient(s). If you are not an i= ntended recipient, please delete this e-mail, including attachments, and no= tify me by return mail, e-mail or at (insert your telephone number). The u= nauthorized 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
|