|
|
Enron Mail |
Assuming you go forward with the concept of reimbursing the banks, I have the
following comments: (a)(i) This should be reviewed by Tax. TIAs are highly negotiated. Use of language in 2.13 of the revolvers may work here? (a)(ii) I will prepare a rider re: capital adequacy rather than reserves. (a)(iii) This should be deleted. I have a number of riders for the following paragraph. In addition, language from 2.13 of the revolvers should be incorporated -- see the exclusions. I will prepare a rider. (b) should be replaced with 2.10(d) of the revolver. I will prepare a rider. 2.10(e) of the revolver should be added -- capping tax payments. © The indemn should be replaced with "foregoing". Could any added tax costs realistically be incurred under the ISDA? Is there any market thought about reserves and derivatives? From: Brian Kerrigan on 09/20/2000 10:01 AM To: Sara Shackleton/HOU/ECT@ECT, Gareth Bahlmann/HOU/ECT@ECT, Mary Cook/HOU/ECT@ECT cc: Subject: Enron - RBC Gas Swap Attached is the language I received regarding increased costs. I would like to determine this morning if this language is acceptable to Enron. ---------------------- Forwarded by Brian Kerrigan/HOU/ECT on 09/20/2000 09:57 AM --------------------------- "Ruth Schonfeld" <Ruth.Schonfeld@macleoddixon.com< on 09/20/2000 12:54:47 AM To: <Dpef@blakes.com<, <Wbn@blakes.com<, <soma.gosh@encron.com<, <brian.kerrigan@enron.com<, <greg.johnstone@enron.com<, <peter.keohane@enron.com<, <Jimmckee@macleoddixon.com<, <Blair.fleming@royalbank.com<, <ian.mcarthur@royalbank.com< cc: Subject: Enron - RBC Gas Swap Attached for your review is a draft clause dealing with increased costs. The writer used a Blakes precedent as a starting point for this draft. - MACLEOD-.DOC
|