|
|
Enron Mail |
Sara,
Per Jean, We may have a good argument for saying there is a material ommission from the confirmation, because there was not a defined reference obligation. However, that option involves going to court and is not really all that desirable. Basically, the whole confirm is so vague, that there's almost no way to tell what Paul traded. Madhur also called Lou Jaffe at DB to feel him out on the trade. Initially Lou was referring to the April 2002 issue of APP, but then when he started reviewing the confirmation and realized that a reference entity was not specified, he started saying that DB had bought protection on any APP issue. I get the feeling that Madhur feels like DB will ultimately work with us on what they deliver to us, since everyone initially agreed that the trade was on the 4/02 issue, it just wasn't documented that way. Of course, the more vague the confirm, the better for DB in this case. (Perhaps if we had had a deal ticket, we wouldhave known what to look for.!) At any rate, Madhur is monitoring the trade with Jeff for Paul (who is in Vegas), and he is keeping us in the loop. You may want to call Madhur direct, just to get his impressions of the conversation with Jean.
|