|
|
Enron Mail |
Can we talk about this on Thursday?
----- Forwarded by Brent Hendry/NA/Enron on 09/26/2000 05:59 PM ----- Andrea Calo 09/26/2000 04:54 PM To: Brent Hendry/NA/Enron@Enron cc: Subject: Re: London Short Form FYI ---------------------- Forwarded by Andrea Calo/SA/Enron on 09/26/2000 06:57 PM --------------------------- Jeff Kabel 09/26/2000 04:45 PM Sent by: Jeff Kabel To: Andrea Calo/SA/Enron@Enron cc: Michael Guerriero/SA/Enron@Enron, Fabian Valle/SA/Enron@Enron Subject: Re: London Short Form I disagree (sorry). Enron Europe is now in a "steady state"...that is that the ENE name and contracting structures are now more understood. But, when they started in the market (at the stage we are now - according to Joe Gold) they went with a short form developed by the commercial and legal teams that mitigated risk but allowed initial transactions to be completed - after this, the ISDA was pushed ahead. He was very clear with us on this... I do not want to drop this issue. We need to get deals done and the counterparties are not, at this stage, any more comfortable with the ISDA document since I arrived here 3 years ago... Thanks for the research. I want to have a meeting on this... Andrea Calo 09/15/2000 07:48 PM To: Michael Guerriero/SA/Enron@Enron, Jeff Kabel/SA/Enron@Enron cc: Fabian Valle/SA/Enron@Enron Subject: London Short Form This morning I spoke with Paul Simons (our trading attorney in London) to discuss the applicability of the one-off non-ISDA form I was told they were using. He explained that Enron London was actually either using the ISDA form, or for markets that already had a form prior to Enron's entry in the market, trying to adapt those forms as much as possible to incorporate the ISDA terms and provisions. He also stated that as a rule, whenever possible, they try to push the ISDA document for financial transactions as well as try to adapt the documentation for new physical transactions to an ISDA format. As an example, he mentioned that Enron had actively participated in the drafting of a new standardized power document pursuant to new regulations in force, and fostered the inclusion of terms contained in the ISDA form such as netting and cross default provisions. All Enron attorneys I have spoken to in Houston and London agree that the ISDA form is the best document on the market because it provides for all situations and risks and is designed to cover crossborder issues. In those countries where Enron doesn't use the ISDA form, it is because a market (and its corresponding documentation) already exists. Enron in those situations does what it can to try to adapt such pre-existing market conditions and rules to more closely resemble the ISDA documentation. Moreover such documents have never been designed for cross border transactions. He also mentioned that typically international players are ISDA friendly and feel comfortable using this document. The recommendation is that we move forward with promoting the ISDA documentation and work on getting the Argentine counterparties comfortable with the form. Andrea
|