Enron Mail

From:carol.clair@enron.com
To:jack.falconi@guarantygroup.com
Subject:New Draft
Cc:jim.crump@enron.com, ken.curry@enron.com
Bcc:jim.crump@enron.com, ken.curry@enron.com
Date:Fri, 8 Jun 2001 02:34:00 -0700 (PDT)

Jack:
Enclosed is a new draft of the Schedules marked against the previous draft.
I believe that this draft responds to most of the issues raised in your
e-mails. Just a few additional thoughts:

1. Since we will be redoing all of the existing confirms to refer to this
Master, I did not change the language that states that conflicts between the
Confirms and the Agreement are resolved in favor of the Confirm. I think
that the language as written works.

2. On the setoff language, when we are the Non-Defaulting Party, we can only
pull in other agreements between our affiliates and inland so I don't see how
this language would impact any agreements between ENA and guaranty Bank
unless Inland is the Non-Defaulting party.

3. With respect to Disruption Fallbacks, our view is that if the Confirm
specifies a Fallback reference Price that after Postponement, you would use
that price if available. I think that the language works as drafted.

4. On cash collateral, the Qualified institution concept only applies when
the non-posting party is a Defaulting party or has a Credit rating below the
threshold. Otherwise the non-posting party can hold the collateral and do
whatever it wants to with it. Your are correct that in practice this cash
gets commingled with corporate funds and swept into the party's bank account
but there is no requirement taht it work that way.

We look forward to having a call with your group next week. Please e-mail me
with some days and times so that I can alert our people. thanks.



Carol St. Clair
EB 3889
713-853-3989 (Phone)
713-646-3393 (Fax)
carol.st.clair@enron.com