|
|
Enron Mail |
Dave:
1. Are you referring to the paragraph where I have a blank? If so, this is part of Leslie Hansen's issue which she and Mark have discussed and I wasn't sure when I drafted this who our counterparty would be. 2. With respect to Paragraph 4, all we are doing is saying that their indemnity to us does not cover losses that we incur as a result of our own acts. This is a crave out that we have given in the past to those that I have requested it and it seems to us a fair compromise given the one-sided nature of the indemnity language. Carol David Forster@ENRON 05/12/2000 01:26 PM To: Carol St Clair/HOU/ECT@ECT cc: Subject: Re: GPU Energy Amendment Letter Couple of questions: - What is the intention of the first paragraph? - So, does Paragraph 4 roughly translate to: "Counterparty is allowed to whack us if we don't have high enough security"? Dave Carol St Clair @ ECT 05/11/2000 03:18 PM To: David Forster/Corp/Enron@Enron cc: Leslie Hansen/HOU/ECT@ECT, Tana Jones/HOU/ECT@ECT, Mark Taylor/HOU/ECT@ECT Subject: GPU Energy Amendment Letter David: Enclosed is a draft of the GPU Energy ETA amendment letter. Leslie Hansen is working with them on the "affiliate" issue so there may be more to add to it. Please let me know if you are okay with these amendments. carol
|