|
|
Enron Mail |
Do you agree with Ken's analysis on the Gramm language?
----- Forwarded by Chris Long/Corp/Enron on 12/11/2000 02:06 PM ----- Chris Long 12/11/2000 11:01 AM To: Linda Robertson/NA/Enron@ENRON cc: Tom Briggs/NA/Enron@Enron Subject: Re: Gramm Legal Certainty Language I spoke to Ken. He has reviewed the languge. The only problem he sees theoritically is that the banking swaps will be given greater legal certainty. However, pushing for this treatment for the energy/metals provsions will likely not be helpful at this juncture. ----- Forwarded by Chris Long/Corp/Enron on 12/11/2000 10:53 AM ----- RAISLERK@sullcrom.com 12/11/2000 10:04 AM To: Chris.Long@enron.com cc: Subject: Re: Gramm Legal Certainty Language Yes. I don't think there is an issue. I will call you shortly. <<< <Chris.Long@enron.com< 12/11 9:49 AM <<< Ken - Did you get a chance to review the Gramm language and follow up on the "rumor" that it would imperil the energy/metals exemption? ----- Forwarded by Chris Long/Corp/Enron on 12/11/2000 09:49 AM ----- Stacy Carey <SCAREY@ISDA. To: US REGULATORY COMMITTEE <USREGCOMM@isda.org< ORG< cc: Subject: Gramm Legal Certainty Language 12/08/2000 09:23 AM Attached is the proposed language reflecting the compromise reached between Senator Gramm and the Chicago Futures Exchanges. <<Gramm Legal Certainty Proposal 12-6.doc<< Stacy Carey Director North American Regulatory Policy International Swaps and Derivatives Association (202) 457-6545 ph (703) 256-1833 fax (917) 543-9622 cell scarey@isda.org (See attached file: Gramm Legal Certainty Proposal 12-6.doc) ---------------------------------- This e-mail is sent by a law firm and contains information that may be privileged and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and notify us immediately.
|